Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Inoue, Takamitsu
• Miura, Masayoshi
• Yanishi, Masaaki
• Furukawa, Junya
• Sato, Fuminori
• Nitta, Masahiro
• Yoshimura, Koji
• Hagiuda, Jun
• Shinoda, Kazunobu
• Kobayashi, Takashi
• Miyajima, Akira
• Nakagawa, Ken
• Oya, Mototsugu
• Ogawa, Osamu
• Mimata, Hiromitsu
• Kanayama, Hiro-omi
• Fujisawa, Masato
• Terachi, Toshiro
• Matsuda, Tadashi
• Habuchi, Tomonori

Titel

A comparison of laparoendoscopic single-site surgery versus conventional procedures for laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a Japanese multi-institutional retrospective study

Ist Teil von

• Surgical endoscopy, 2020-08, Vol.34 (8), p.3424-3434

Ort / Verlag

New York: Springer US

Erscheinungsjahr

2020

Quelle

Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• Purpose Laparoendoscopic single-site donor nephrectomy (LESSDN) is a feasible and effective procedure because of its non-invasiveness and better cosmetic outcomes. However, there have been few multi-institutional studies conducted by multiple surgeons on LESSDN. We retrospectively compared the clinical data and outcomes between LESSDN and conventional laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) at multiple institutes in Japan. Materials and methods From 2009 to 2015, the clinical data of 223 donors who underwent LESSDN and 151 donors who underwent LDN were collected from 10 institutes. All LESSDNs were performed transperitoneally, whereas LDNs were performed transperitoneally (P-LDN) in 75 patients and retroperitoneally (R-LDN) in 76 patients. Results In the LESSDN group, the single-incision site was pararectal in 155 (69.5%) patients and umbilical in 65 (29.1%) patients. Multiple surgeons (one to eight per institute) performed the LESSDN. No significant differences were observed between the three groups regarding estimated blood loss and warm ischemic time. The operative time was significantly shorter in the LESSDN group than in the R-LDN group ( p  = 0.018). No significant differences were observed regarding the rates of blood transfusion, open conversion, visceral injuries, and postoperative complications. Furthermore, no significant differences were observed regarding the dose of analgesic and the rate of delayed graft function. One patient required open conversion due to injury to the renal artery. Selection of LESS procedure was not an independent risk factor for the median serum creatinine level of above 1.27 mg/dL in recipients at 1 year after kidney transplantation. Conclusion The results showed the technical feasibility of LESSDN compared with the standard LDNs in a multi-institutional and multi-surgeon setting. A few observed non-negligible complications and the significantly higher levels of serum creatinine in patients who underwent LESSDN indicate that this procedure should be employed cautiously when performed by surgeons without ample experience in performing LESS procedures.