Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||A comparison of traditional open, minimal-incision donor nephrectomy and laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.|
|Citation:||TRANSPL INT, 2004, 17 (10), pp. 589-595|
|Abstract:||Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) and minimal-incision donor nephrectomy (MILD) are less invasive procedures than the traditional open donor nephrectomy approach (ODN). This study compares donor and recipient outcome following those three different procedures. Sixty consecutive donor nephrectomies were studied (n = 20 in each group). Intra-operative variables, analgesic requirements, donor recovery, donor/recipient complications and allograft function were recorded prospectively. Operating and first warm ischaemia times were longer for LDN than for ODN and MILD (232+/-35 vs 121+/-24 vs 147+/-27 min, P < 0.001; 4+/-1 vs 2+/-2 vs 2+/-1 min, P < 0.01). Postoperative morphine requirements were significantly higher after ODN than after MILD and LDN (182+/-113 vs 86+/-48 vs 71+/-45 mg; P < 0.0001). There was no episode of delayed graft function in this study. Donors returned to work quicker after LDN than after ODN and MILD (6+/-2 vs 11+/-5 vs 10+/-7; P = 0.055). Donor and recipient complication rates and recipient allograft function were comparable. We concluded that MILD and LDN reduce postoperative pain and allow a faster recovery without compromising recipient outcome.|
|Appears in Collections:||Published Articles, Dept. of Infection, Immunity and Inflammation|
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in LRA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.