Asian journal of endoscopic surgery · 2011
Implementation and learning of laproscopic donor nephrectomy by a non-transplant general surgeon with advanced laparoscopic skills.
Сравнительное исследованиеОценочное 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.
Voskoboinik A, Gutman M J, Croagh D, Bell R, Saunder A, Gribbin J, Kanellis J
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Traditionally performed by vascular surgeons or urologists, laparoscopic nephrectomy for live kidney donor transplantation has emerged as a new effective and safe technique. This study examines the implementation of this technique at our centre, as performed by a single general surgeon with expertise in advanced laparoscopic surgery.
METHODS: Patient records for 78 live donor transplants performed between February 2002 and September 2008 were divided into two groups (with 39 patients each) analyzed. A variety of outcome variables were compared. The same individual surgeon performed all laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) procedures.
RESULTS: A significant advantage was noted for LDN with respect to hospital stay (LDN 5.1 ± 1.1 days vs open donor nephrectomy [ODN] 6.4 ± 2.6 days, P=0.01) while ODN had a significant advantage with respect to operative time (LDN 241.1 ± 55.7 min vs ODN 152.0 ± 27.7 min, P<0.01). Within the LDN group, we noted a significant shortening in the operation time with each case as experience increased (see graph; P<0.01). The total postoperative complication rate was similar in both groups (LDN: 31% vs ODN: 44%, P=0.25). There was a trend towards more respiratory complications in ODN (ODN 11/39 [28%] vs LDN 5/39 [13%], P=0.09).
CONCLUSION: While implementing a new procedure may result in longer operative times initially, these improve with time, and our data demonstrates no compromise in patient safety or outcomes. The LDN procedure proved to be a desirable alternative to ODN, with shorter hospital stay and improved operator skills with each case, and without significant compromise in allograft recovery.
METHODS: Patient records for 78 live donor transplants performed between February 2002 and September 2008 were divided into two groups (with 39 patients each) analyzed. A variety of outcome variables were compared. The same individual surgeon performed all laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) procedures.
RESULTS: A significant advantage was noted for LDN with respect to hospital stay (LDN 5.1 ± 1.1 days vs open donor nephrectomy [ODN] 6.4 ± 2.6 days, P=0.01) while ODN had a significant advantage with respect to operative time (LDN 241.1 ± 55.7 min vs ODN 152.0 ± 27.7 min, P<0.01). Within the LDN group, we noted a significant shortening in the operation time with each case as experience increased (see graph; P<0.01). The total postoperative complication rate was similar in both groups (LDN: 31% vs ODN: 44%, P=0.25). There was a trend towards more respiratory complications in ODN (ODN 11/39 [28%] vs LDN 5/39 [13%], P=0.09).
CONCLUSION: While implementing a new procedure may result in longer operative times initially, these improve with time, and our data demonstrates no compromise in patient safety or outcomes. The LDN procedure proved to be a desirable alternative to ODN, with shorter hospital stay and improved operator skills with each case, and without significant compromise in allograft recovery.