Minimal incision living donor nephrectomy: Improvement in patient outcome

被引:28
作者
Yang, SL
Harkaway, R
Badosa, F
Ginsberg, P
Greenstein, MA
机构
[1] Albert Einstein Med Ctr, Dept Kidney Transplantat, Philadelphia, PA 19141 USA
[2] Albert Einstein Med Ctr, Dept Urol, Philadelphia, PA 19141 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1016/S0090-4295(02)01516-9
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Objectives. To analyze the minimal incision living donor (MILD) nephrectomy and compare it with the standard open donor (SOD) nephrectomy with respect to incision size, operative time, complication rate, length of hospital stay, and recipient creatinine. Methods. Forty-five consecutive patients who underwent MILD nephrectomy were compared with 13 patients who had previously undergone SOD nephrectomy. The MILD nephrectomy was performed through a minimally invasive incision using a modified, anterolateral, retroperitoneal approach without a rib resection. The incision length, operative time, complication rates, length of hospital stay, and recipient creatinine were analyzed. Results. The average incision length in the MILD group was 8.6 cm compared with 21.8 cm in the SOD group (P >0.005.) The operative times (209 minutes in the MILD group versus 191 minutes in the SOD group) were not significantly different. Four postoperative complications were encountered in the SOD group and seven In the MILD group. The average hospital stay for the MILD patients was 2.5 days compared with 4.6 days in the SOD group, and as the procedure was refined, the length of stay was reduced to 1 day in 3 patients. The recipient creatinine at I and 6 months was 1.39 and 1.4 mg/dL in the MILD group, respectively. Conclusions. The MILD nephrectomy allows the patient to undergo a less morbid procedure with a more aesthetic incision. Patients have fewer complications, minimal anesthesia exposure, and short hospital stays. (C) 2002, Elsevier Science Inc.
引用
收藏
页码:673 / 677
页数:5
相关论文
共 12 条
  • [1] Bartlett ST, 1999, DIALYSIS TRANSPLANT, V28, P318
  • [2] COSIMI AB, 1988, KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATI, P93
  • [3] Morbidity of flank incision for renal donors
    Duque, JLF
    Loughlin, KR
    Kumar, S
    [J]. UROLOGY, 1999, 54 (05) : 796 - 801
  • [4] HINMAN F, 1998, ATLAS UROLOGIC SURG, P974
  • [5] Complications and risks of living donor nephrectomy
    Johnson, EM
    Remucal, MJ
    Gillingham, KJ
    Dahms, RA
    Najarian, JS
    Matas, AJ
    [J]. TRANSPLANTATION, 1997, 64 (08) : 1124 - 1128
  • [6] Long-term follow-up of living kidney donors: Quality of life after donation
    Johnson, EM
    Anderson, JK
    Jacobs, C
    Suh, G
    Humar, A
    Suhr, BD
    Kerr, SR
    Matas, AJ
    [J]. TRANSPLANTATION, 1999, 67 (05) : 717 - 721
  • [7] JOHNSON EM, 1997, LIVING KIDNEY DONATI, P231
  • [8] Jones KW, 1999, AM SURGEON, V65, P197
  • [9] A comparison of recipient renal outcomes with laparoscopic versus open live donor nephrectomy
    Nogueira, JM
    Cangro, CB
    Fink, JC
    Schweitzer, E
    Wiland, A
    Klassen, DK
    Gardner, J
    Flowers, J
    Jacobs, S
    Cho, E
    Philosophe, B
    Bartlett, ST
    Weir, MR
    [J]. TRANSPLANTATION, 1999, 67 (05) : 722 - 728
  • [10] Comparison of laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy versus the standard open approach
    Ratner, LE
    Kavoussi, LR
    Schulam, PG
    Bender, JS
    Magnuson, TH
    Montgomery, R
    [J]. TRANSPLANTATION PROCEEDINGS, 1997, 29 (1-2) : 138 - 139