Pure versus hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy: a retrospective cohort study of 1508 transplants from two centers

Hiroshi Noguchi, Yoichi Kakuta, Masayoshi Okumi, Kazuya Omoto, Yasuhiro Okabe, Hideki Ishida, Masafumi Nakamura, Kazunari Tanabe

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: Although minimally invasive procedures have been established as the standard for a donor nephrectomy, there are many different surgical techniques described in the literature. The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes of kidney transplant procedures using the pure retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy (PRDN) and hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy (HARDN) techniques. Methods: A retrospective study involving 1508 transplant procedures was conducted; 874 were PRDN procedures; and 634 were HARDN. We reviewed the outcomes of the PRDN and HARDN groups, which were performed at two different centers over an identical time period. Results: Donors in the PRDN group had a longer operation time (P < 0.0001), reduced estimated blood loss (P < 0.0001), less open conversion (P = 0.0002), lower postoperative serum C-reactive protein levels (P < 0.0001), and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (P < 0.0001) than the HARDN group. Recipients in the PRDN group had lower serum creatinine levels at postoperative day 1–6 and the decreased incidence of slow graft function (P = 0.0017) than the HARDN group. The HARDN procedure was an independent risk factor for the incidence of acute rejection (P = 0.0211) and graft loss (P = 0.0193). Conclusions: Our study suggests that the PRDN procedure is less invasive for donors as it results in reduced blood loss, lower postoperative serum CRP levels, and a shorter postoperative stay than the HARDN procedure. Additionally, PRDN provides a better outcome for recipients as it lowers the incidence of acute rejection and improves graft survival compared to HARDN.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)4038-4047
Number of pages10
JournalSurgical endoscopy
Volume33
Issue number12
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 1 2019

Fingerprint

Nephrectomy
Cohort Studies
Retrospective Studies
Hand
Transplants
Incidence
Postoperative Hemorrhage
Graft Survival
Serum
C-Reactive Protein
Blood Proteins
Length of Stay
Creatinine

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Surgery

Cite this

Pure versus hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy : a retrospective cohort study of 1508 transplants from two centers. / Noguchi, Hiroshi; Kakuta, Yoichi; Okumi, Masayoshi; Omoto, Kazuya; Okabe, Yasuhiro; Ishida, Hideki; Nakamura, Masafumi; Tanabe, Kazunari.

In: Surgical endoscopy, Vol. 33, No. 12, 01.12.2019, p. 4038-4047.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{85079f0868c8435496dfc03950b31815,
title = "Pure versus hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy: a retrospective cohort study of 1508 transplants from two centers",
abstract = "Background: Although minimally invasive procedures have been established as the standard for a donor nephrectomy, there are many different surgical techniques described in the literature. The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes of kidney transplant procedures using the pure retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy (PRDN) and hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy (HARDN) techniques. Methods: A retrospective study involving 1508 transplant procedures was conducted; 874 were PRDN procedures; and 634 were HARDN. We reviewed the outcomes of the PRDN and HARDN groups, which were performed at two different centers over an identical time period. Results: Donors in the PRDN group had a longer operation time (P < 0.0001), reduced estimated blood loss (P < 0.0001), less open conversion (P = 0.0002), lower postoperative serum C-reactive protein levels (P < 0.0001), and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (P < 0.0001) than the HARDN group. Recipients in the PRDN group had lower serum creatinine levels at postoperative day 1–6 and the decreased incidence of slow graft function (P = 0.0017) than the HARDN group. The HARDN procedure was an independent risk factor for the incidence of acute rejection (P = 0.0211) and graft loss (P = 0.0193). Conclusions: Our study suggests that the PRDN procedure is less invasive for donors as it results in reduced blood loss, lower postoperative serum CRP levels, and a shorter postoperative stay than the HARDN procedure. Additionally, PRDN provides a better outcome for recipients as it lowers the incidence of acute rejection and improves graft survival compared to HARDN.",
author = "Hiroshi Noguchi and Yoichi Kakuta and Masayoshi Okumi and Kazuya Omoto and Yasuhiro Okabe and Hideki Ishida and Masafumi Nakamura and Kazunari Tanabe",
year = "2019",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s00464-019-06697-y",
language = "English",
volume = "33",
pages = "4038--4047",
journal = "Surgical Endoscopy",
issn = "0930-2794",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Pure versus hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy

T2 - a retrospective cohort study of 1508 transplants from two centers

AU - Noguchi, Hiroshi

AU - Kakuta, Yoichi

AU - Okumi, Masayoshi

AU - Omoto, Kazuya

AU - Okabe, Yasuhiro

AU - Ishida, Hideki

AU - Nakamura, Masafumi

AU - Tanabe, Kazunari

PY - 2019/12/1

Y1 - 2019/12/1

N2 - Background: Although minimally invasive procedures have been established as the standard for a donor nephrectomy, there are many different surgical techniques described in the literature. The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes of kidney transplant procedures using the pure retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy (PRDN) and hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy (HARDN) techniques. Methods: A retrospective study involving 1508 transplant procedures was conducted; 874 were PRDN procedures; and 634 were HARDN. We reviewed the outcomes of the PRDN and HARDN groups, which were performed at two different centers over an identical time period. Results: Donors in the PRDN group had a longer operation time (P < 0.0001), reduced estimated blood loss (P < 0.0001), less open conversion (P = 0.0002), lower postoperative serum C-reactive protein levels (P < 0.0001), and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (P < 0.0001) than the HARDN group. Recipients in the PRDN group had lower serum creatinine levels at postoperative day 1–6 and the decreased incidence of slow graft function (P = 0.0017) than the HARDN group. The HARDN procedure was an independent risk factor for the incidence of acute rejection (P = 0.0211) and graft loss (P = 0.0193). Conclusions: Our study suggests that the PRDN procedure is less invasive for donors as it results in reduced blood loss, lower postoperative serum CRP levels, and a shorter postoperative stay than the HARDN procedure. Additionally, PRDN provides a better outcome for recipients as it lowers the incidence of acute rejection and improves graft survival compared to HARDN.

AB - Background: Although minimally invasive procedures have been established as the standard for a donor nephrectomy, there are many different surgical techniques described in the literature. The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes of kidney transplant procedures using the pure retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy (PRDN) and hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy (HARDN) techniques. Methods: A retrospective study involving 1508 transplant procedures was conducted; 874 were PRDN procedures; and 634 were HARDN. We reviewed the outcomes of the PRDN and HARDN groups, which were performed at two different centers over an identical time period. Results: Donors in the PRDN group had a longer operation time (P < 0.0001), reduced estimated blood loss (P < 0.0001), less open conversion (P = 0.0002), lower postoperative serum C-reactive protein levels (P < 0.0001), and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (P < 0.0001) than the HARDN group. Recipients in the PRDN group had lower serum creatinine levels at postoperative day 1–6 and the decreased incidence of slow graft function (P = 0.0017) than the HARDN group. The HARDN procedure was an independent risk factor for the incidence of acute rejection (P = 0.0211) and graft loss (P = 0.0193). Conclusions: Our study suggests that the PRDN procedure is less invasive for donors as it results in reduced blood loss, lower postoperative serum CRP levels, and a shorter postoperative stay than the HARDN procedure. Additionally, PRDN provides a better outcome for recipients as it lowers the incidence of acute rejection and improves graft survival compared to HARDN.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85063139744&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85063139744&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00464-019-06697-y

DO - 10.1007/s00464-019-06697-y

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85063139744

VL - 33

SP - 4038

EP - 4047

JO - Surgical Endoscopy

JF - Surgical Endoscopy

SN - 0930-2794

IS - 12

ER -