Journal article
Hand-assisted living-donor nephrectomy: a retrospective comparison of two techniques.
- Widmer JD Department of Surgery, Kantonsspital Frauenfeld, 8500, Frauenfeld, Switzerland. jeannette.widmer@gmx.net.
- Schlegel A Division of Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland.
- Kron P Division of Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland.
- Schiesser M Department of Surgery, Kantonsspital St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland.
- Brockmann JG Department of Surgery, Kidney and Pancreas Transplantation, King Faisal Specialist Hospital, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
- Muller MK Division of Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland.
- 2018-05-12
Published in:
- BMC urology. - 2018
Adult
Aged
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Hand-Assisted Laparoscopy
Humans
Kidney Transplantation
Living Donors
Male
Middle Aged
Nephrectomy
Postoperative Complications
Retroperitoneal Space
Retrospective Studies
English
BACKGROUND
Living-donor nephrectomy (LDN) is challenging, as surgery is performed on healthy individuals. Minimally invasive techniques for LDN have become standard in most centers. Nevertheless, numerous techniques have been described with no consensus on which is the superior approach. Both hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic (HARS) and hand-assisted laparoscopic (HALS) LDNs are performed at Zurich University Hospital. The aim of this study was to compare these two surgical techniques in terms of donor outcome and graft function.
METHOD
Retrospective single-center analysis of 60 consecutive LDNs (HARS n = 30; HALS n = 30) from June 2010 to May 2012, including a one-year follow-up of the recipients.
RESULTS
There was no mortality in either group and little difference in the overall complication rates. Median warm ischemia time (WIT) was significantly shorter in the HARS group. The use of laxatives and the incidence of postoperative vomiting were significantly greater in the HALS group. There was no difference between right- and left-sided nephrectomies in terms of donor outcome and graft function.
CONCLUSIONS
Both techniques appear safe for both donors and donated organs. The HARS technique is associated with a shorter WIT and a reduced incidence of postoperative paralytic ileus. Therefore, we consider HARS LDN a valuable alternative to HALS LDN.
Living-donor nephrectomy (LDN) is challenging, as surgery is performed on healthy individuals. Minimally invasive techniques for LDN have become standard in most centers. Nevertheless, numerous techniques have been described with no consensus on which is the superior approach. Both hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic (HARS) and hand-assisted laparoscopic (HALS) LDNs are performed at Zurich University Hospital. The aim of this study was to compare these two surgical techniques in terms of donor outcome and graft function.
METHOD
Retrospective single-center analysis of 60 consecutive LDNs (HARS n = 30; HALS n = 30) from June 2010 to May 2012, including a one-year follow-up of the recipients.
RESULTS
There was no mortality in either group and little difference in the overall complication rates. Median warm ischemia time (WIT) was significantly shorter in the HARS group. The use of laxatives and the incidence of postoperative vomiting were significantly greater in the HALS group. There was no difference between right- and left-sided nephrectomies in terms of donor outcome and graft function.
CONCLUSIONS
Both techniques appear safe for both donors and donated organs. The HARS technique is associated with a shorter WIT and a reduced incidence of postoperative paralytic ileus. Therefore, we consider HARS LDN a valuable alternative to HALS LDN.
- Language
-
- English
- Open access status
- gold
- Identifiers
-
- DOI 10.1186/s12894-018-0355-2
- PMID 29747596
- Persistent URL
- https://folia.unifr.ch/global/documents/11838
Statistics
Document views: 13
File downloads: