Complications of retroperitoneoscopic living donor nephrectomy: single center experience after 164 cases

Bachmann, Alexander; Wyler, Stephen; Wolff, Thomas; Gürke, Lorenz; Steiger, Jürg; Kettelhack, Christoph; Gasser, Thomas C.; Ruszat, R.

doi:10.1007/s00345-008-0296-6

Cited by 26 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 33 publications

(37 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In our series, as in the report by Tanabe et al, [10] the surgical time was defined as the time from the first port insertion until removal of the kidney. The mean surgical time in our series was shorter than in the study of Tanabe et al, [10] similar to that reported by Bachmann et al [8] and slightly longer than that reported by Ma et al [9] (Table 3). In our series the proportion of rightsided nephrectomies was considerably higher than in the compared series (Table 3).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy: Review of the first 50 cases at Tygerberg Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa

Merwe¹,

Cf²

2014

S Afr J Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background.Changing from an open to a laparoscopic live renal donor programme poses challenges and may affect donor and graft outcomes. Objectives. To evaluate donor safety and graft outcomes for the first 50 retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomies performed at Tygerberg Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa. Methods. The procedures were performed by a single surgeon from 8 April 2008 to 3 April 2012. Operative and anatomical data were prospectively collected. A flank approach with lateral and posterior placements was used. Vascular control was achieved with Hemolok clips in the majority of cases. Results. The mean age of the donors was 31.5 years (range 18 50), 28 (56.0%) were male, and the left kidney was harvested in 28 (56.0%) of cases. The mean operating time was 149.8 minutes (range 75 250), mean warm ischaemic time (WIT) 181.3 seconds (107 630), mean blood loss 139.7 ml (5 700) and mean hospital stay 3.2 days (2 5). Mean WIT was significantly longer for rightsided than leftsided nephrectomy (213 v. 162 seconds). In two rightsided cases the renal vein was too short and vena profunda femoris was used to create length. No donor received a blood transfusion. Comparing the last 25 with the first 25 cases showed a significant decrease in mean WIT (158 v. 204 seconds, respectively) and operating time (128 v. 172 minutes, respectively). No major complications occurred. Conclusion. Our initial 50 retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomies were performed without major complications. Donor safety was maintained during the early learning curve of the transition to minimalaccess donor nephrectomy.S Afr J Surg 2013;52(2):5356.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy: Review of the first 50 cases at Tygerberg Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa

Merwe¹,

Cf²

2014

S Afr J Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this study, the WIT of group 2 was significantly shorter than that in group 1, which compares favorably with many previous reports [9,11,12,17,18,21,22]. However, our WIT results may be the shortest achieved in RPLDN compared with results from other studies.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 53%

“…Visceral complications are also associated with laparoscopic nephrectomy [5,9,20]. Because the retroperitoneal approach has a lower rate of complications, it is a feasible alternative to LDN [9,21,22]. To obtain maximum benefits, many investigators prefer HARPLDN, which combines these 2 techniques [1,9,18,23].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modified Hand-Assisted Retroperitoneoscopic Living Donor Nephrectomy with a Mini-Open Muscle Splitting Gibson Incision

Zhu¹,

Lin²,

Guo³

et al. 2016

Urol Int

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: We aimed to confirm the advantages of a modified hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic living donor nephrectomy (HARPLDN) compared to the performance of standard retroperitoneoscopic living donor nephrectomy (RPLDN). Methods: One hundred twenty-eight consecutive surgical cases were categorized into 2 groups, one receiving standard RPLDN (group 1) and one receiving modified HARPLDN (group 2). Perioperative factors of both groups were evaluated retrospectively, including donors' demographics, overall operating time, warm ischemia time (WIT), graft vessel length, blood loss, complications, pain visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, hospital stay, and matched recipients' perioperative outcomes. One-year follow-up data were also examined. Results: The standard RPLDN group (n = 44) and modified HARPLDN group (n = 84) had comparable age, gender, and body mass index. The RPLDN group donors had longer operative time, shorter vein length and longer WIT than the modified HARPLDN (all p < 0.001). RPLDN had higher VAS scores (p < 0.001), longer carminative time (p = 0.002) and higher morphine requirement (p = 0.039) than the modified HARPLDN. No complications occurred in either group. All recipients and grafts had survived at 1-year follow-up. Conclusion: The modified HARPLDN technique is safe and effective for living donor nephrectomy and has shorter operating time, shorter WIT and better pain control. Further study is required to evaluate donors' long-term quality of life and recipients' long-term outcomes.

show abstract

“…6 In addition, the surgeons who select RA for LDN expect that the limited dissection and visceral manipulation in RA may decrease postoperative recovery time and pain compared with TA. 4 There is no proven scientific basis for this speculation, however. Which approach is less invasive for living kidney transplant donors has not yet been established.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Comparison of the Clinical Outcome and Systemic Inflammatory Marker Levels Between Retroperitoneal and Transperitoneal Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy

Saito

Tsuchiya²,

Narita³

et al. 2012

Journal of Endourology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Complications of retroperitoneoscopic living donor nephrectomy: single center experience after 164 cases

Cited by 26 publications

References 33 publications

Retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy: Review of the first 50 cases at Tygerberg Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa

Retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy: Review of the first 50 cases at Tygerberg Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa

Modified Hand-Assisted Retroperitoneoscopic Living Donor Nephrectomy with a Mini-Open Muscle Splitting Gibson Incision

Comparison of the Clinical Outcome and Systemic Inflammatory Marker Levels Between Retroperitoneal and Transperitoneal Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About