Unlabelled: A comparison of laparoscopic and open donor nephrectomy is presented by authors from the UK. They found that the laparoscopic approach could safely be offered to patients treated in experienced units and after adequate training fo the surgeon, with no increase in complications or decrease in efficacy.
Objective: To compare our early experience of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) with a contemporary cohort of conventional open donor nephrectomy (ODN).
Patients And Methods: Transperitoneal left-sided LDN was offered to carefully selected potential live kidney donors on the basis of vascular anatomy. The first 20 donors who underwent LDN were compared with a control group of 20 patients who had ODN. Donors and recipients were compared for demographics, intraoperative variables, postoperative complications and allograft function.
Results: There was no peri-operative mortality in either group. No laparoscopic procedure required open conversion. The operating time was comparable (165 vs 153 min); LDN was associated with significantly less intraoperative blood loss (200 vs 350 mL; Mann-Whitney U, P = 0.01) and hospital stay (3 vs 5 days; P < 0.001). The graft warm ischaemic time was significantly longer for LDN (5 vs 2 min; P < 0.001) but this did not appear to affect either the delayed graft function rate (5% vs 10%, not significant) or serum creatinine level at discharge (125 vs 126 micromol/L).
Conclusions: UK centres with experience of advanced laparoscopy and ODN can safely offer LDN to potential live donors.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2004.05264.x | DOI Listing |
Introduction: Living-donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) is often performed using hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN). Adherent perinephric fat (APF) can complicate HALDN, increasing operative time. The Mayo Adhesive Probability (MAP) score predicts APF preoperatively.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFInt J Med Robot
February 2025
Department of Surgery, Division of Transplantation, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, New York, USA.
Background: We aimed to investigate the outcome of patients after RDN at different time points.
Methods: We studied the outcomes of 77 living robotic living donor nephrectomies (RDN). Donors were separated into three groups: learning curve period (LCP), stabilisation period (SP), and teaching period (TP).
Minerva Urol Nephrol
December 2024
Unit of Uro-Oncology and Kidney Transplant, Department of Urology, Fundació Puigvert, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
BMC Nephrol
January 2025
Glasgow Renal & Transplant Unit, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, 1345 Govan Road, Glasgow, G51 4TF, Scotland.
Background: A number of UK transplantation centres use isotope studies to estimate the relative contribution from each kidney in living kidney donor assessment. The evidence that the estimation of pre-donation split function of the non-donated kidney influences post-donation renal recovery is limited. The aim of this study was to analyse whether, in the context of other donor factors, the split function of the non-donated kidney predicts the percentage recovery of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) at one-year post-donation.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFBMC Nephrol
January 2025
Department of Urology, Nara Medical University, 840 Shijo-cho, Kashihara, Nara, 634-8522, Japan.
Background: The existing criteria for living kidney donors (LKDs)in Japan are controversial. We evaluated the roles of computed tomography volumetry (CTV) and 99 m Tc-diethylenetriamine penta-acetic acid (DTPA) scintigraphy in assessing preoperative and postoperative renal function and predicting early recovery of residual renal function.
Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical charts of 175 consecutive LKDs who underwent donor nephrectomy (DN) at our institution between 2006 and 2022.
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!