4.6 Article

Donor nephrectomy: Mini-incision muscle-splitting open approach versus laparoscopy

期刊

TRANSPLANTATION
卷 81, 期 6, 页码 881-887

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.tp.0000203320.74256.fd

关键词

living donors; nephrectomy; minimally invasive; kidney

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. The introduction of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) has encouraged the development of less invasive open techniques. Aim of the present study was to compare short-term outcomes between contemporary cohorts of donors who underwent either mini-incision open or laparoscopic kidney donation. Methods. From May 2001 to September 2004 data of all living kidney donations and transplantations were prospectively collected. Fifty-one donors underwent mini-incision, muscle-splitting open donor nephrectomy(MIDN) and 49 donors underwent LDN. Results. Baseline characteristics of donors and recipients in the study groups were comparable except for donors' gender. Median incision length in MIDN was 10.5 cm. In two patients LDN was converted to open. MIDN resulted in significantly shorter warm ischemia and operation time (2.5 vs. 6.5 min and 157 vs. 240 min respectively). During MIDN, donors had more blood loss (200 vs. 120 ml, P=0.02). Disposables used for MIDN were cheaper (328 vs. 1784 Euros). In the LDN group 4 (8%) major intraoperative and 2 (4%) major postoperative complications occurred versus no major complications in the MIDN group. Morphine requirement, pain and nausea perception, and time to dietary intake did not significantly differ between the groups. Following MIDN, donors were discharged later (4 vs. 3 days, P=0.02). Transplantation of kidneys procured by either approach led to a similar decline in serum creatinine throughout the first year. One-year graft survival was 100% following MIDN and 86% following LDN (P=0.005). Conclusion. MIDN and LDN both lead to satisfactory results. Both techniques can be used to expand living donor programs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据