Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy

The recipient

Lloyd E. Ratner, Robert A. Montgomery, Warren R. Maley, Cynthia Cohen, James F. Burdick, Kenneth D. Chavin, Dilip S. Kittur, Paul Colombani, Andrew Klein, Edward Kraus, Louis R. Kavoussi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy offers advantages to the donor in terms of decreased pain and shorter recuperation. Heretofore no detailed analysis of the recipient of laparoscopically procured kidneys has been performed. The purpose of this study was to determine whether laparoscopic donor nephrectomy had any deleterious effect on the recipient. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted of all live donor renal transplantations performed from January 1995 through April 1998. The control group received kidneys procured via a standard flank approach (Open). Rejection was diagnosed histologically. Creatinine clearance was calculated using the Cockroft-Gault formula. Results: A total of 110 patients received kidneys from laparoscopic (Lap) and 48 from open donors. One-year recipient (100% vs. 97.0%) and graft (93.5% vs. 91.1%) survival rates were similar for the Open and Lap groups, respectively. A similar incidence of vascular thrombosis (3.4% vs. 2.1%, P=NS) and ureteral complications (9.1% vs. 6.3%, P=NS) were seen in the Lap and Open groups, respectively. The incidence of acute rejection for the first month was 30.1% for the Lap group and 31.9% for the Open group (P=NS). The rate of decline of serum creatinine level in the early post-transplantation period was initially greater in the Open group, but by postoperative day 4 no significant difference existed. No difference was observed in allograft function long-term. The median length of hospital stay was 7.0 days for both groups. Conclusions: Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy does not adversely effect recipient outcome. The previously demonstrated benefits to the donor, and the increased willingness of individuals to undergo live kidney donation, coupled with the acceptable outcomes experienced by recipients of laparoscopically procured kidneys justifies the continued development and adoption of this operation.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2319-2323
Number of pages5
JournalTransplantation
Volume69
Issue number11
StatePublished - Jun 15 2000

Fingerprint

Nephrectomy
Tissue Donors
Kidney
Length of Stay
Creatinine
Incidence
Kidney Transplantation
Allografts
Blood Vessels
Thrombosis
Survival Rate
Transplantation
Transplants
Pain
Control Groups
Serum

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Transplantation
  • Immunology

Cite this

Ratner, L. E., Montgomery, R. A., Maley, W. R., Cohen, C., Burdick, J. F., Chavin, K. D., ... Kavoussi, L. R. (2000). Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: The recipient. Transplantation, 69(11), 2319-2323.

Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy : The recipient. / Ratner, Lloyd E.; Montgomery, Robert A.; Maley, Warren R.; Cohen, Cynthia; Burdick, James F.; Chavin, Kenneth D.; Kittur, Dilip S.; Colombani, Paul; Klein, Andrew; Kraus, Edward; Kavoussi, Louis R.

In: Transplantation, Vol. 69, No. 11, 15.06.2000, p. 2319-2323.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Ratner, LE, Montgomery, RA, Maley, WR, Cohen, C, Burdick, JF, Chavin, KD, Kittur, DS, Colombani, P, Klein, A, Kraus, E & Kavoussi, LR 2000, 'Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: The recipient', Transplantation, vol. 69, no. 11, pp. 2319-2323.
Ratner LE, Montgomery RA, Maley WR, Cohen C, Burdick JF, Chavin KD et al. Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: The recipient. Transplantation. 2000 Jun 15;69(11):2319-2323.
Ratner, Lloyd E. ; Montgomery, Robert A. ; Maley, Warren R. ; Cohen, Cynthia ; Burdick, James F. ; Chavin, Kenneth D. ; Kittur, Dilip S. ; Colombani, Paul ; Klein, Andrew ; Kraus, Edward ; Kavoussi, Louis R. / Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy : The recipient. In: Transplantation. 2000 ; Vol. 69, No. 11. pp. 2319-2323.
@article{50b183c115b847e496cc9e65fba0e530,
title = "Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: The recipient",
abstract = "Background: Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy offers advantages to the donor in terms of decreased pain and shorter recuperation. Heretofore no detailed analysis of the recipient of laparoscopically procured kidneys has been performed. The purpose of this study was to determine whether laparoscopic donor nephrectomy had any deleterious effect on the recipient. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted of all live donor renal transplantations performed from January 1995 through April 1998. The control group received kidneys procured via a standard flank approach (Open). Rejection was diagnosed histologically. Creatinine clearance was calculated using the Cockroft-Gault formula. Results: A total of 110 patients received kidneys from laparoscopic (Lap) and 48 from open donors. One-year recipient (100{\%} vs. 97.0{\%}) and graft (93.5{\%} vs. 91.1{\%}) survival rates were similar for the Open and Lap groups, respectively. A similar incidence of vascular thrombosis (3.4{\%} vs. 2.1{\%}, P=NS) and ureteral complications (9.1{\%} vs. 6.3{\%}, P=NS) were seen in the Lap and Open groups, respectively. The incidence of acute rejection for the first month was 30.1{\%} for the Lap group and 31.9{\%} for the Open group (P=NS). The rate of decline of serum creatinine level in the early post-transplantation period was initially greater in the Open group, but by postoperative day 4 no significant difference existed. No difference was observed in allograft function long-term. The median length of hospital stay was 7.0 days for both groups. Conclusions: Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy does not adversely effect recipient outcome. The previously demonstrated benefits to the donor, and the increased willingness of individuals to undergo live kidney donation, coupled with the acceptable outcomes experienced by recipients of laparoscopically procured kidneys justifies the continued development and adoption of this operation.",
author = "Ratner, {Lloyd E.} and Montgomery, {Robert A.} and Maley, {Warren R.} and Cynthia Cohen and Burdick, {James F.} and Chavin, {Kenneth D.} and Kittur, {Dilip S.} and Paul Colombani and Andrew Klein and Edward Kraus and Kavoussi, {Louis R.}",
year = "2000",
month = "6",
day = "15",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "69",
pages = "2319--2323",
journal = "Transplantation",
issn = "0041-1337",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy

T2 - The recipient

AU - Ratner, Lloyd E.

AU - Montgomery, Robert A.

AU - Maley, Warren R.

AU - Cohen, Cynthia

AU - Burdick, James F.

AU - Chavin, Kenneth D.

AU - Kittur, Dilip S.

AU - Colombani, Paul

AU - Klein, Andrew

AU - Kraus, Edward

AU - Kavoussi, Louis R.

PY - 2000/6/15

Y1 - 2000/6/15

N2 - Background: Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy offers advantages to the donor in terms of decreased pain and shorter recuperation. Heretofore no detailed analysis of the recipient of laparoscopically procured kidneys has been performed. The purpose of this study was to determine whether laparoscopic donor nephrectomy had any deleterious effect on the recipient. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted of all live donor renal transplantations performed from January 1995 through April 1998. The control group received kidneys procured via a standard flank approach (Open). Rejection was diagnosed histologically. Creatinine clearance was calculated using the Cockroft-Gault formula. Results: A total of 110 patients received kidneys from laparoscopic (Lap) and 48 from open donors. One-year recipient (100% vs. 97.0%) and graft (93.5% vs. 91.1%) survival rates were similar for the Open and Lap groups, respectively. A similar incidence of vascular thrombosis (3.4% vs. 2.1%, P=NS) and ureteral complications (9.1% vs. 6.3%, P=NS) were seen in the Lap and Open groups, respectively. The incidence of acute rejection for the first month was 30.1% for the Lap group and 31.9% for the Open group (P=NS). The rate of decline of serum creatinine level in the early post-transplantation period was initially greater in the Open group, but by postoperative day 4 no significant difference existed. No difference was observed in allograft function long-term. The median length of hospital stay was 7.0 days for both groups. Conclusions: Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy does not adversely effect recipient outcome. The previously demonstrated benefits to the donor, and the increased willingness of individuals to undergo live kidney donation, coupled with the acceptable outcomes experienced by recipients of laparoscopically procured kidneys justifies the continued development and adoption of this operation.

AB - Background: Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy offers advantages to the donor in terms of decreased pain and shorter recuperation. Heretofore no detailed analysis of the recipient of laparoscopically procured kidneys has been performed. The purpose of this study was to determine whether laparoscopic donor nephrectomy had any deleterious effect on the recipient. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted of all live donor renal transplantations performed from January 1995 through April 1998. The control group received kidneys procured via a standard flank approach (Open). Rejection was diagnosed histologically. Creatinine clearance was calculated using the Cockroft-Gault formula. Results: A total of 110 patients received kidneys from laparoscopic (Lap) and 48 from open donors. One-year recipient (100% vs. 97.0%) and graft (93.5% vs. 91.1%) survival rates were similar for the Open and Lap groups, respectively. A similar incidence of vascular thrombosis (3.4% vs. 2.1%, P=NS) and ureteral complications (9.1% vs. 6.3%, P=NS) were seen in the Lap and Open groups, respectively. The incidence of acute rejection for the first month was 30.1% for the Lap group and 31.9% for the Open group (P=NS). The rate of decline of serum creatinine level in the early post-transplantation period was initially greater in the Open group, but by postoperative day 4 no significant difference existed. No difference was observed in allograft function long-term. The median length of hospital stay was 7.0 days for both groups. Conclusions: Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy does not adversely effect recipient outcome. The previously demonstrated benefits to the donor, and the increased willingness of individuals to undergo live kidney donation, coupled with the acceptable outcomes experienced by recipients of laparoscopically procured kidneys justifies the continued development and adoption of this operation.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0034659859&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0034659859&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 69

SP - 2319

EP - 2323

JO - Transplantation

JF - Transplantation

SN - 0041-1337

IS - 11

ER -