Journal of endourology · 2018
Retroperitoneal Single Port Versus Transperitoneal Multiport Donor Nephrectomy: A Prospective Randomized Control Trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Chauhan Neelam, Kenwar Deepesh Benjamin, Singh Navdeep, Singh Sarbpreet, Sharma Ashish, Kapoor Kunal, Kumar Sandeep
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) converted a retroperitoneal (RP) procedure into a transperitoneal (TP) operation with reports of bowel and solid organ injuries leading to mortality in occasional cases. Laparoscopic RP donor nephrectomy can reduce these risks but never became popular because of the muscle cutting approach. Lumbotomy incision can be used to approach retroperitoneum by incising fascial planes, eliminating disadvantages of the RP approach. This report compares the outcomes of the standard multiport TP LDN with translumbar laparoendoscopic single-site donor nephrectomy (LESS-DN).
METHODS: Between January 2016 and June 2017, 50 voluntary kidney donors out of 267 donors were randomized to undergo LESS-DN vs LDN. Donors with body mass index ≥30 kg/m2, multiple renal arteries, and right-sided nephrectomy were excluded from the study. Postoperative pain, duration of surgery, length of graft vessels and ureter, warm ischemia time, intraoperative blood loss, incision length, convalescence period, duration of hospital stay, and recipients' creatinine at discharge were compared among both the groups. Pain assessment was done using visual analogue scale (VAS).
RESULTS: The RP group experienced lesser pain (VAS score 0.3 ± 0.3 vs 1.1 ± 0.0, p = 0.000), lesser analgesic requirement (186 ± 51.07 mg vs 254 ± 62.7 mg, p = 0.000), and faster convalescence (7.0 ± 3.0 days vs 10.7 ± 3.3 days, p = 0.00) related to smaller cumulative incision (7.8 ± 0.8 cm vs12.4 ± 2.0 cm, p = 0.00), and had reduced operative time (142 ± 26.2 minutes vs 170.8 ± 34.75 minutes, p = 0.001) and blood loss. Other recorded parameters were similar in both the groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The single port RP approach significantly reduced postoperative pain and hastened recovery when compared with the TP approach. Converting to a RP approach presents an opportunity for surgeons to further reduce morbidity associated with the donor nephrectomy.
METHODS: Between January 2016 and June 2017, 50 voluntary kidney donors out of 267 donors were randomized to undergo LESS-DN vs LDN. Donors with body mass index ≥30 kg/m2, multiple renal arteries, and right-sided nephrectomy were excluded from the study. Postoperative pain, duration of surgery, length of graft vessels and ureter, warm ischemia time, intraoperative blood loss, incision length, convalescence period, duration of hospital stay, and recipients' creatinine at discharge were compared among both the groups. Pain assessment was done using visual analogue scale (VAS).
RESULTS: The RP group experienced lesser pain (VAS score 0.3 ± 0.3 vs 1.1 ± 0.0, p = 0.000), lesser analgesic requirement (186 ± 51.07 mg vs 254 ± 62.7 mg, p = 0.000), and faster convalescence (7.0 ± 3.0 days vs 10.7 ± 3.3 days, p = 0.00) related to smaller cumulative incision (7.8 ± 0.8 cm vs12.4 ± 2.0 cm, p = 0.00), and had reduced operative time (142 ± 26.2 minutes vs 170.8 ± 34.75 minutes, p = 0.001) and blood loss. Other recorded parameters were similar in both the groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The single port RP approach significantly reduced postoperative pain and hastened recovery when compared with the TP approach. Converting to a RP approach presents an opportunity for surgeons to further reduce morbidity associated with the donor nephrectomy.