Laparoscopic Live Donor Nephrectomy

Su, Li Ming; Ratner, Lloyd E.; Montgomery, Robert A.; Jarrett, Thomas W.; Trock, Bruce J.; Sinkov, Vladimir; Bluebond-Langner, Rachel; Kavoussi, Louis R.

doi:10.1097/01.sla.0000133351.98195.1c

Cited by 133 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[8]A popular technique of extraction is using a specimen retrieval bag (EndoCatch bag II ® , Ethicon Endosurgery, OH). [7] This technique allows the retrieval in a controlled manner in the long axis of the kidney. The drawback of this technique is that the retrieval bags are expensive.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Common techniques include extraction using a custom made Endobag, (EndoCatch bag II ® , Ethicon Endosurgery, OH, USA), retrieval with the help of hand assist devices like Gelport (Applied Medical, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA, USA) and manual extraction without any hand assist device. [789] The common sites of extraction are Pfannensteil (PF) incision, vertical midline (MD) periumbilical and iliac fossa (IF) incision. [789] In this report, we prospectively compare the three techniques of extraction for outcomes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[789] The common sites of extraction are Pfannensteil (PF) incision, vertical midline (MD) periumbilical and iliac fossa (IF) incision. [789] In this report, we prospectively compare the three techniques of extraction for outcomes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparison of three different techniques of extraction in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim:We compare the outcome of three different methods of graft extraction after a laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.Materials and Methods:After a conventional five port laparoscopic donor nephrectomy, specimen was extracted through one of three approaches: 1. Iliac fossa (IF) incision and hand extraction, 2. Midline (MD) periumbilical with a lower polar fat stitch incorporating gonadal vein for traction while retrieval, and 3. Pfannensteil (PF) with Gel port extraction. Estimated blood loss, operating time, warm ischemia time, incision length, pain score, analgesic consumption, hospital stay, wound complications, graft complications and recipient creatinine at 6 weeks were analyzed.Results:Warm ischemia time was significantly reduced in PF group when compared to other groups. Length of the incision was less in the MD group compared to other groups. Wound complications were significantly less in PF group when compared to other groups. Graft extraction complications were significantly high in MD group compared to other two groups.Conclusion:Based on the results obtained, our current method of preference is by Pfannensteil incision. A controlled extraction with the use of a hand assist device would be best for donor safety and to avoid graft related complications.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of three different techniques of extraction in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In 1995 a paper published by Winfield et al [6] described their success of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy in 4 patients. Around the same time, the first laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy was performed by Dr. Kavoussi and colleagues at Johns Hopkins University in 1995 [7]. As techniques were refined, average operative time and length of stay both improved, and exploration of other laparoscopic urologic surgeries such as laparoscopic nephroureterectomy and retroperitoneal lymph node dissection began to emerge [4].…”

Section: History Of Laparoscopic Renal Surgerymentioning

confidence: 99%

Past, present, and future of laparoscopic renal surgery

Cwach

Kavoussi

2016

Investig Clin Urol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although laparoscopic renal surgery dates to almost 30 years ago, in which the first laparoscopic nephrectomy was performed in 1990, the history of laparoscopy extends back over 100 years, when laparoscopy was first performed on dogs. Over the last 30 years, laparoscopic renal surgery has seen many advancements in technology and technique. With the introduction of robotics and new instruments, renal surgery is becoming increasingly less invasive, and patients are having improved operative outcomes. As new technology develops, the envelope will continue to be pushed by urologists with the hope of improvement of patient outcomes and satisfaction.

show abstract

“…Laparoscopic procurement can offer an advantage to living kidney donors. The recent outcome of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy seems to be greatly improved compared to that in the early years, but the procedure still remains challenging even for the most experienced laparoscopists [2–4]. This is apparent especially in contrast to open donor nephrectomy, in which the right kidney was removed in 24% to 35% of the patients.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of Right-Sided Nephrectomy on Long-Term Outcomes in Retroperitoneoscopic Live Donor Nephrectomy at Single Center

Omoto

Nozaki

Inui

et al. 2013

Journal of Transplantation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective. To assess the long-term graft survival of right-sided retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy (RPLDN), we compared the outcomes of right- and left-sided RPLDN. Methods. Five hundred and thirty-three patients underwent live donor renal transplantation with allografts procured by RPLDN from July 2001 to August 2010 at our institute. Of these, 24 (4.5%) cases were selected for right-sided RPLDN (R-RPLDN) according to our criteria for donor kidney selection. Study variables included peri- and postoperative clinical data. Results. No significant differences were found in the recipients' postoperative graft function and incidence of slow graft function. Despite significant increased warm ischemic time (WIT: mean 5.9 min versus 4.7 min, P < 0.001) in R-RPLDN compared to that in L-RPLDN, there was no significant difference between the two groups regarding long-term patient and graft survival. The complication rate in R-RPLDN was not significantly different compared to that in L-RPLDN (17% versus 6.5%, P = 0.132). No renal vein thrombosis was experienced in either groups. Conclusions. Although our study was retrospective and there was only a small number of R-RPLDN patients, R-RPLDN could be an option for laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy because of similar results, with the sole exception of WIT, in L-RPLDN, and its excellent long-term graft outcomes.

show abstract

Laparoscopic Live Donor Nephrectomy

Cited by 133 publications

References 26 publications

Comparison of three different techniques of extraction in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

Comparison of three different techniques of extraction in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

Past, present, and future of laparoscopic renal surgery

Impact of Right-Sided Nephrectomy on Long-Term Outcomes in Retroperitoneoscopic Live Donor Nephrectomy at Single Center

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About