Laparoscopic Right Donor Nephrectomy: A Two-Center Comparative Study.

Autor:	Ahmadi A; Urology, Salmaniya Medical Complex, Manama, BHR., Al Rashed AA; Urology, Salmaniya Medical Complex, Manama, BHR., Hasan O; Urology, Salmaniya Medical Complex, Manama, BHR., Awad N; Urology, Salmaniya Medical Complex, Manama, BHR., Abdulaziz K; Urology, Salmaniya Medical Complex, Manama, BHR., Turki B; Urology, Salmaniya Medical Complex, Manama, BHR., Ebrahim SD; Urology, Salmaniya Medical Complex, Manama, BHR., Jaafar H; Urology, Salmaniya Medical Complex, Manama, BHR., Al Geizawi S; Urology and Transplant, Al Saudi Hospital, Amman, JOR.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Cureus [Cureus] 2024 May 03; Vol. 16 (5), pp. e59562. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 May 03 (Print Publication: 2024).
DOI:	10.7759/cureus.59562
Abstrakt:	Introduction As the field of laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy (LLDN) has progressed over the years, there has been a growing emphasis on optimizing surgical techniques and outcomes to ensure the safety and well-being of living kidney donors. The early experiences with right LLDN, marked by challenges and concerns such as high conversion rates to open surgery and early graft loss due to technical reasons, prompted a reevaluation of the approach toward right-sided donor nephrectomies. In this article, we aim to compare the safety and efficacy of right LLDN to left LLDN performed in our centers and to provide valuable insights that can ultimately enhance patient outcomes and ensure the well-being of living organ donors. Methods Between January 2018 and January 2022, we conducted 16 cases of right LLDN and compared them with 134 cases of left LLDN procedures done in the Kingdom of Bahrain and Jordan over the same time period. We analyzed differences in donor age, sex, operative time, warm ischemia time (WIT), graft function, complications, and conversion to open technique. Patient data and surgical outcomes were extracted from medical records and surgical databases. Statistical analysis was conducted to identify significant differences between the two groups. Categorical variables such as complications and safety outcomes were compared using chi-square tests and logistic regression analysis. The primary outcomes of interest included safety metrics such as complication rates, vascular complications, graft loss, and postoperative serum creatinine levels for the recipients. Results Our study showed similar demographics in both groups. However, the operative time was shorter for the left LLDN, with 81 minutes compared to 96 minutes for the right. Warm ischemia times (WITs) were comparable at 4.5 minutes for the left and 5.2 minutes for the right. There was less incidence of delayed graft function on the left side (none in the left group compared to one case in the right group). Both groups had similar six-month graft function in terms of serum creatinine levels (0.98 mg/dL for the left and 1.2 mg/dL for the right), hospital stays (2.5 days for the left and 2.8 days for the right), and estimated blood loss (EBL) (90 mL for the left and 50 mL for the right). Additionally, no blood transfusions were required in either group, but there was one case of conversion to open surgery in the right LLDN group. Conclusion Our data confirm the safety and efficacy of the right LLDN, consistent with the current literature. This increases the cumulative evidence supporting the use of laparoscopic retrieval on the right side when indicated. Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. (Copyright © 2024, Ahmadi et al.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu