Minimally Invasive Video-Assisted Kidney Transplantation (MIVAKT)

Mun, Seong-Pyo; Chang, Jeong-Hwan; Kim, Kyoung-Jong; Jeong, Gui-Ae; Cheon, Min-Woo; Ahn, Young‐Joon; Kim, Seong-Hwan

doi:10.1016/j.jss.2006.08.042

Cited by 14 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…20,21 Disadvantages included prolonged WIT 20 and total operation time. 18-20 We found lower rates of Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3 complications at both 30- and 90-d postsurgery in the RAKT group after propensity score matching. This finding is consistent with previous reports in kidney transplants and also in line with other comparisons of minimally invasive techniques with open equivalents in other surgical procedures.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 71%

“…Our findings align with previous literature, demonstrating early advantages of a robotic approach. To date, multiple investigations have demonstrated comparable outcomes for death-censored graft survival and patient survival when comparing conventional OKT to minimally invasive kidney transplant, 18 as well as open (Gibson incision) with RAKT 6 ; however, reports assessing minimally invasive techniques have suggested lower surgical site infection 6 and reduced incisional hernia rates 18 with improved cosmetic results 19 and postoperative pain. 20 , 21 Disadvantages included prolonged WIT 20 and total operation time.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of the 47 patients who received RAKT, 47% were White, 36% were Black, and 17% had "other" listed in the medical record. Of the patients who required dialysis before the kidney transplant, the duration of dialysis was longer in the RAKT group (median [IQR], 14 [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] versus 24 mo; P = 0.04) (Table 1).…”

Section: Overall Cohort: Patient Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Robotic-assisted Versus Open Technique for Living Donor Kidney Transplantation: A Comparison Using Propensity Score Matching for Intention to Treat

Tinney

Ivanics

Stracke

et al. 2022

Transplantation Direct

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. Living donor robotic-assisted kidney transplantation (RAKT) is an alternative to open kidney transplantation (OKT), but experience with this technique is limited in the United States. Methods. A retrospective review of living donor kidney transplants performed between 2016 and 2018 compared RAKT with OKT with regard to recipient, donor, and perioperative parameters. A 1:1 propensity score matching was performed on recipient/donor age, sex, body mass index, race, preoperative dialysis, and calculated panel reactive antibodies. Results. Outcomes of patient survival, graft survival, and postoperative complications were assessed for 139 transplants (47 RAKT and 92 OKT). Propensity score analysis (47:47) showed that RAKT recipients had longer warm ischemic times (49 versus 40 min; P < 0.001) and less blood loss (100 versus 150 mL; P = 0.005). Operative time and length of stay were similar between groups. Postoperative serum creatinine was similar during a 2-y follow-up. Post hoc analysis excluding 4 open conversions showed lower operative time with RAKT (297 versus 320 min; P = 0.04) and lower 30-d (4.7% versus 23.4%; P = 0.02) and 90-d (7% versus 27.7%; P = 0.01) Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3 complications. Conclusions. Our findings suggest that RAKT is a safe alternative to OKT.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 71%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Overall Cohort: Patient Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Robotic-assisted Versus Open Technique for Living Donor Kidney Transplantation: A Comparison Using Propensity Score Matching for Intention to Treat

Tinney

Ivanics

Stracke

et al. 2022

Transplantation Direct

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…4 The second minimal approach was reported by Mun, who suggested using a laparoscopically assisted technique to help visualize the anastomosis within the narrow operating field. 5 Then, the total laparoscopic renal transplant technique came to match the laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. 6 All minimal techniques share certain contraindications, including obesity, atherosclerotic vessels, repeat transplant, and a deep pelvis, and are associated with certain difficulties such as controlling bleeding points that result from the intrinsically limited maneuvers required to access the kidney from different angles.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Minimal-Access Kidney Transplant

Omar¹

2015

Exp Clin Transplant

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: Minimal-access kidney transplant is not a new approach, however this approach is a good option for obese patients because access is difficult and often associated with wound complications and prolonged recovery. Materials and Methods: Minimal-access kidney transplant uses an inguinal incision that is placed 4-6 cm above the pubic bone that extends to 2.5-cm lateral to the mid-inguinal point. Once the skin and subcutaneous tissues are opened, the external oblique is split in the same direction as the wound. Then, the oblique and transverse abdominal muscles are split at the lateral edge of the wound, the abdominal muscles are separated from the lateral border of the rectus muscle, and the inferior epigastric vessels and round ligament are tied and cut. Mobilizing the peritoneum upward exposes the iliac vessels. Then, dissect the space between the urinary bladder and rectus muscle to create a pouch, which accommodates the kidney. The renal vessels are then clearly visible, while the kidney itself is hidden in the subrectus pouch. Suitable retractors are needed to perform these procedures. Then, arterial anastomosis can be performed. The clamps are released after testing the arterial and venous anastomoses. After securing hemostasis, the kidney can be left in the pouch, rotated laterally, or remain in the middle of the wound. Close only the external oblique muscle. Results:This technique requires minimal assistance and a small incision. An illustrative photo and diagram are included along with the full demographic data of the patients. Conclusions: Engrafting kidneys into obese patients via the minimal-access approach is feasible, safe, and demonstrates comparable outcomes to other methods; however, more studies are needed.

show abstract

“…In the interesting paper entitled "Minimally invasive video-assisted kidney transplantation (MIVAKT)" [1], the new technique is presented as the first report on minimally invasive kidney transplantation (MIKT). It is stated (Introduction) that ".…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Minimally Invasive Kidney Transplantation (MIKT)

Øyen

2008

Journal of Surgical Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Minimally Invasive Video-Assisted Kidney Transplantation (MIVAKT)

Cited by 14 publications

References 11 publications

Robotic-assisted Versus Open Technique for Living Donor Kidney Transplantation: A Comparison Using Propensity Score Matching for Intention to Treat

Robotic-assisted Versus Open Technique for Living Donor Kidney Transplantation: A Comparison Using Propensity Score Matching for Intention to Treat

Minimal-Access Kidney Transplant

Minimally Invasive Kidney Transplantation (MIKT)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About