Safety and efficacy of laparoendoscopic single-site donor nephrectomy: A comparison of the transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches

IF 0.8 Q4 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
C. Lin, Ching-Chia Li, H. Ke, Wen-Jeng Wu, Y. Chou, Sheng-Chen Wen
{"title":"Safety and efficacy of laparoendoscopic single-site donor nephrectomy: A comparison of the transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches","authors":"C. Lin, Ching-Chia Li, H. Ke, Wen-Jeng Wu, Y. Chou, Sheng-Chen Wen","doi":"10.4103/uros.uros_146_21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: Laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy is the main technique at high-volume renal transplant centers. Laparoendoscopic single-site donor nephrectomy (LESS-DN) is s an evolutionary minimally invasive surgery, which could be performed by transperitoneal or retroperitoneal approaches. We present a retrospective analysis of our single-institution donor nephrectomy series comparing the transperitoneal to retroperitoneal LESS-DN regarding operative outcomes. Materials and Methods: Seventeen patients who underwent LESS-DN from 2017–2020 were enrolled at our center. The same surgeon performed all cases. The two approaches were compared for the operation time, blood loss, warm ischemia time (WIT), postoperative pain, length of stay (LOS), postoperative wound size, postoperative pain, and the postoperative renal function for twelve months retrospectively. Results: Operating time (257 vs. 180 min, P = 0.016) and LOS (6.5 vs. 5 days, P = 0.013) were significantly longer in the transperitoneal group. The postoperative wound size (47.5 vs. 75 mm, P = 0.038) was substantially smaller in the transperitoneal group. There was no significant difference in other parameters, including blood loss, WIT, complication rate, and postoperative pain from day one to day three. Conclusion: Retroperitoneal LESS-DN results in similar perioperative outcomes as transperitoneal LESS-DN without compromising donor safety and providing a faster operation time, shorter LOS, and a trend toward a shorter WIT. Both approach methods may be safe and effective procedures for living kidney transplantation.","PeriodicalId":23449,"journal":{"name":"Urological Science","volume":"33 1","pages":"145 - 151"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urological Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/uros.uros_146_21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy is the main technique at high-volume renal transplant centers. Laparoendoscopic single-site donor nephrectomy (LESS-DN) is s an evolutionary minimally invasive surgery, which could be performed by transperitoneal or retroperitoneal approaches. We present a retrospective analysis of our single-institution donor nephrectomy series comparing the transperitoneal to retroperitoneal LESS-DN regarding operative outcomes. Materials and Methods: Seventeen patients who underwent LESS-DN from 2017–2020 were enrolled at our center. The same surgeon performed all cases. The two approaches were compared for the operation time, blood loss, warm ischemia time (WIT), postoperative pain, length of stay (LOS), postoperative wound size, postoperative pain, and the postoperative renal function for twelve months retrospectively. Results: Operating time (257 vs. 180 min, P = 0.016) and LOS (6.5 vs. 5 days, P = 0.013) were significantly longer in the transperitoneal group. The postoperative wound size (47.5 vs. 75 mm, P = 0.038) was substantially smaller in the transperitoneal group. There was no significant difference in other parameters, including blood loss, WIT, complication rate, and postoperative pain from day one to day three. Conclusion: Retroperitoneal LESS-DN results in similar perioperative outcomes as transperitoneal LESS-DN without compromising donor safety and providing a faster operation time, shorter LOS, and a trend toward a shorter WIT. Both approach methods may be safe and effective procedures for living kidney transplantation.
腹腔镜单部位供肾切除术的安全性和有效性:腹膜后和腹膜后入路的比较
目的:腹腔镜活体供肾切除术是大容量肾移植中心的主要手术技术。腹腔镜单部位供肾切除术(LESS-DN)是一种不断发展的微创手术,可通过经腹膜或后腹膜入路进行。我们对单一机构供体肾切除术系列进行回顾性分析,比较经腹膜和后腹膜LESS-DN的手术结果。材料和方法:17例2017-2020年接受LESS-DN治疗的患者入组。所有病例由同一位外科医生进行手术。回顾性比较两种入路12个月的手术时间、出血量、热缺血时间(WIT)、术后疼痛、住院时间(LOS)、术后创面大小、术后疼痛及术后肾功能。结果:经腹膜组手术时间(257 vs 180 min, P = 0.016)和LOS (6.5 vs 5 d, P = 0.013)明显长于经腹膜组。术后创面大小(47.5 vs 75 mm, P = 0.038)明显小于经腹膜组。从第1天到第3天,其他参数无显著差异,包括出血量、WIT、并发症发生率和术后疼痛。结论:腹膜后LESS-DN与腹膜后LESS-DN围手术期预后相似,且不影响供体安全性,且手术时间更快、LOS更短、WIT更短。这两种方法都可能是安全有效的活体肾移植方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Urological Science
Urological Science UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
审稿时长
6 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信