World journal of urology · 2018
A randomized, prospective study of laparoendoscopic single-site plus one-port versus mini laparoscopic technique for live donor nephrectomy.
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.
Lee Kyu Won, Choi Sae Woong, Park Yong Hyun, Bae Woong Jin, Choi Yong Sun, Ha U-Syn, Hong Sung-Hoo, Lee Ji Youl, Kim Sae Woong, Cho Hyuk Jin
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare the clinical outcomes of laparoendoscopic single-site plus one-port donor nephrectomy (LESSOP-DN) and mini laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (MLDN).
METHODS: A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted from December 2014 to February 2016 in donors scheduled for left donor nephrectomy. Donor and recipient demographics and clinical outcomes including pain scores and questionnaires (BIQ: body image questionnaire, SF-36, patient-reported overall convalescence) were also compared.
RESULTS: A total of 121 eligible donors were recruited, of which 99 donors who were scheduled to undergo an operation on their left side were randomized into LESSOP-DN (n = 50) and MLDN (n = 49) groups. There were no significant demographic differences between the two groups. The renal extraction time in the LESS-DN group was shorter than that in the MLDN group (75.89 ± 13.01 vs. 87.31 ± 11.38 min, p < 0.001). Other perioperative parameters and complication rates were comparable between the two groups. The LESSOP-DN group had a smaller incision length than the MLDN group (4.89 ± 0.68 vs. 6.21 ± 1.11 cm, p < 0.001), but cosmetic scores and body image scores were similar in the two groups (p = 0.905, 0.217). Donor quality of life (SF-36) and recovery and satisfaction data were comparable between the two groups. Delayed graft function (DGF) occurred in one recipient undergoing MLDN procedure (2.1%) and progressed to graft failure.
CONCLUSIONS: There were no differences in cosmetic satisfaction between groups despite the smaller incision size of LESSOP-DN. Safety parameters and subjective measures of postoperative morbidity were similar between the two groups.
METHODS: A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted from December 2014 to February 2016 in donors scheduled for left donor nephrectomy. Donor and recipient demographics and clinical outcomes including pain scores and questionnaires (BIQ: body image questionnaire, SF-36, patient-reported overall convalescence) were also compared.
RESULTS: A total of 121 eligible donors were recruited, of which 99 donors who were scheduled to undergo an operation on their left side were randomized into LESSOP-DN (n = 50) and MLDN (n = 49) groups. There were no significant demographic differences between the two groups. The renal extraction time in the LESS-DN group was shorter than that in the MLDN group (75.89 ± 13.01 vs. 87.31 ± 11.38 min, p < 0.001). Other perioperative parameters and complication rates were comparable between the two groups. The LESSOP-DN group had a smaller incision length than the MLDN group (4.89 ± 0.68 vs. 6.21 ± 1.11 cm, p < 0.001), but cosmetic scores and body image scores were similar in the two groups (p = 0.905, 0.217). Donor quality of life (SF-36) and recovery and satisfaction data were comparable between the two groups. Delayed graft function (DGF) occurred in one recipient undergoing MLDN procedure (2.1%) and progressed to graft failure.
CONCLUSIONS: There were no differences in cosmetic satisfaction between groups despite the smaller incision size of LESSOP-DN. Safety parameters and subjective measures of postoperative morbidity were similar between the two groups.