These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: impact on an established renal transplant program.
    Author: Shafizadeh S, McEvoy JR, Murray C, Baillie GM, Ashcraft E, Sill T, Rogers J, Baliga P, Rajagopolan PR, Chavin K.
    Journal: Am Surg; 2000 Dec; 66(12):1132-5. PubMed ID: 11149584.
    Abstract:
    The current disparity of viable organs and patients in need of a transplant has been an impetus for innovative measures. Live donor renal transplantation offers significant advantages compared with cadaveric donor transplantation: increased graft and patient survival, diminution in incidence of delayed graft function, acute tubular necrosis (ATN), and reduction in waiting time. Notwithstanding these gains live donors continue to be underutilized and account for only approximately one quarter of all renal transplants performed in the United States. It has been felt that inherent disincentives to live donation have slowed its growth. These include degree and duration of postoperative pain and convalescence, child care concerns, cosmetic concerns, and time until return to full activities and employment. In an attempt to curtail the disincentives to live donation, laparoscopic live donation (laparoscopic donor nephrectomy; LDN) was developed. The purpose of this study was to compare the results of our first 25 laparoscopic nephrectomies (performed over a 10-month period from September 1998 through July 1999) with the previous 25 standard open donor nephrectomies (ODNs) completed over the past 3 years. We conducted a retrospective review of all donor nephrectomies and recipient pairs performed over the past 3 years. End points included sex, operative time, length of stay, immediate and long-term renal function, and willingness to donate. There were no differences in demographics of the ODN versus the LDN group. The average length of stay was 2.48+/-0.72 days for the LDN versus 4.08+/-0.28 days for the ODN. ODN and LDN have comparable short- and long-term function with no delayed graft function and no complications. Growth of living donor transplant has increased from 16 per cent of all kidney transplants performed in 1995 to 23 per cent in 1999. We conclude that LDN is a viable alternative to the standard donor operation. LDN has had a positive impact on the donor pool by minimizing disincentives to live donation. With the initiation of our laparoscopic program the number of LDNs has increased. Presently the live donor pool is the most viable alternative to significantly increase the number of kidneys for transplantation.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]