The Journal of urology · 2020
Robotic Kidney Transplantation with Regional Hypothermia versus Open Kidney Transplantation for Patients with End Stage Renal Disease: An Ideal Stage 2B Study.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ahlawat Rajesh, Sood Akshay, Jeong Wooju, Ghosh Prasun, Keeley Jacob, Abdollah Firas, Kher Vijay, Olson Phil, Farah Guillaume, Wurst Hallie, Bhandari Mahendra, Menon Mani
Аннотация
PURPOSE: We report on comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive versus traditional open kidney transplantation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We undertook a prospective cohort study of 654 patients who underwent open or robotic kidney transplantation at a single tertiary care hospital between January 2013 and December 2015. Primary outcome was delayed graft function, defined as the need for dialysis within 1 week of surgery. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications, pain, graft rejection, and graft and patient survival. Nonparsimonious propensity score and Ding-VanderWeele analytical methods were used to account for confounding bias.
RESULTS: Within the 1:3 matched cohort (robotic 126, open 378; well matched with standardized mean difference ∼10%), the robotic approach was associated with lower rates of wound infections (0% vs 4%, p=0.023) and symptomatic lymphoceles (0% vs 7% at 36 months, p=0.003), as well as reduced postoperative pain, requirement for narcotic analgesia and blood loss. There were no differences between the 2 groups, robotic versus open, with respect to graft function (delayed graft function 0% vs 2.4%, p=0.081), hospital stay (median 8 days for both, p=0.647), graft rejection (16.2% vs 18.6% at 36 months, p=0.643), and graft (95.2% vs 96.3% at 36 months, p=0.266) and overall survival (94.5% vs 98.1% at 36 months, p=0.307). Ding-VanderWeele analysis suggested minimal influence of unknown confounders on study findings.
CONCLUSIONS: Robotic kidney transplantation with regional hypothermia was associated with a lower rate of postoperative complications and improved patient comfort in comparison to open kidney transplantation. Graft function, and graft and overall survival were comparable between the 2 techniques.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We undertook a prospective cohort study of 654 patients who underwent open or robotic kidney transplantation at a single tertiary care hospital between January 2013 and December 2015. Primary outcome was delayed graft function, defined as the need for dialysis within 1 week of surgery. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications, pain, graft rejection, and graft and patient survival. Nonparsimonious propensity score and Ding-VanderWeele analytical methods were used to account for confounding bias.
RESULTS: Within the 1:3 matched cohort (robotic 126, open 378; well matched with standardized mean difference ∼10%), the robotic approach was associated with lower rates of wound infections (0% vs 4%, p=0.023) and symptomatic lymphoceles (0% vs 7% at 36 months, p=0.003), as well as reduced postoperative pain, requirement for narcotic analgesia and blood loss. There were no differences between the 2 groups, robotic versus open, with respect to graft function (delayed graft function 0% vs 2.4%, p=0.081), hospital stay (median 8 days for both, p=0.647), graft rejection (16.2% vs 18.6% at 36 months, p=0.643), and graft (95.2% vs 96.3% at 36 months, p=0.266) and overall survival (94.5% vs 98.1% at 36 months, p=0.307). Ding-VanderWeele analysis suggested minimal influence of unknown confounders on study findings.
CONCLUSIONS: Robotic kidney transplantation with regional hypothermia was associated with a lower rate of postoperative complications and improved patient comfort in comparison to open kidney transplantation. Graft function, and graft and overall survival were comparable between the 2 techniques.