medigraphic.com
SPANISH

Boletín del Colegio Mexicano de Urología

Órgano Oficial de el Colegio Mexicano de Urología
  • Contents
  • View Archive
  • Information
    • General Information        
    • Directory
  • Publish
    • Instructions for authors        
  • medigraphic.com
    • Home
    • Journals index            
    • Register / Login
  • Mi perfil

2006, Number 3

<< Back Next >>

Bol Col Mex Urol 2006; 21 (3)

Comparación entre nefrectomía abierta y la nefrectomía laparoscópicamanoasistidaenpacientesdonadoresvivosrelacionados

Juárez CF, Vizcaíno RJC, Carvajal GR, Fernández GA, Montes de Oca AJ
Full text How to cite this article

Language: Spanish
References: 16
Page: 92-95
PDF size: 30.58 Kb.


Key words:

Laparoscopic nephrectomy, renal transplant, donors.

ABSTRACT

Objective: The objective of this study is to demonstrate our initial experience with hand assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy for alive related donors renal transplant in Regional Hospital Valentin Gomez Farias. Material and methods: A retrospective study was made reviewing files of related alive donors between February of 2004 and January of 2005. Parameters like bleeding, surgical time, postsurgical pain, days of incapacity and graft viability were those taken into account for this study. Results: A total of 12 patients studied of who four were women with a rank of age between 23 and 42 years and eight men with a rank of age between 22 and 49 years. Hand assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy was made to 12 of them with a surgical time average of 260 minutes and a 196 mL blood loss average with just one transfusion, the hospital stay average was of 2,4 days, cold ischemia time average was 66 minutes and hot ischemia of 96 seconds. Complications were only reported in three patients (all of the abdominal distention group, venous thrombosis of MPD, eventration and necessity of blood transfusion). Pain reported average was of five (EVA). Conclusions: Hand assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal donation is a safe, reproducible procedure with low indices of morbidity and offers advantages on conventional techniques in relation to pain, days of incapacity, cosmetic and patient’s acceptance. Nevertheless, we are conscious that time of hot ischemia should be improved, as well as the surgical time, taking in consideration that this study is part of pilot group, same in which the sample will be increased to be able to do a statistical analysis that provides more suitable parameters for our hospital.


REFERENCES

  1. Merrill JP, Murray JE, Harrison JH, et al. Successful homotransplantation of the human kidney between identical twins. JAMA 1956; 160: 277.

  2. Annual Report of the US Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients and Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network-Transplant Data: 1988-1997. United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) and Division of Transplantation, Bureau of Health Resources and Services Administration. Rockville, Maryland: United States Department of Health and Human Services; 1998.

  3. Engen DE.Transplantation update. AUA Update Series 16, lesson 27;1997, p. 210.

  4. Ratner LE, Ciseck LJ, Moore RG, et al. Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. Transplantation1995; 60: 1047.

  5. Sasaki T, Finelli F, Barhyte D, et al. Is laparoscopic donor nephrectomy here to stay? Am J Surg 1999; 177: 368.

  6. Flowers JL, Jacobs S, Cho E, et al. Comparison of open and laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. Ann Surg 1997; 226: 483.

  7. London E, Rudich S, McVicar J, et al. Equivalent renal allograft function with laparoscopic versus open live donor nephrectomies. Transplant Proc 1999; 31: 258.

  8. Odland MD, Ney AL, Jacobs DM, et al. Initial experience with laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. Surgery 1999; 126: 603.

  9. Ratner LE, Montgomery RA, Cohen C, et al. Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: the recipient. Transplantation 1998; 65: S109. 10.Fabrizio MD, Ratne, LE, Montgomery RA, et al. Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. Urol Clin North Am 1999; 26: 247. 11.Wolf JS, et al. Hand-assisted laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. Urology 1998; 52: 885. 12.Chan DY, Su L, Kavoussi LR. Ralpid ligation of renal helium during transperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy. Urology 2001; 57: 360.

  10. 13.Chan D, Bishop JT, Rather L, et al. Endovascular gastrointestinal stapler device malfunctiion during laparoscopic nephrectomy: early recognition and management. J Urology 2000; 164: 319.

  11. 14.Nakada SY, et al. Use of the pneumosleeve as an adjunct in laparoscopic nephrectomy. Urology 1997; 49: 612.

  12. 15.Wolf JS Jr., et al. Hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy:technical considerations. Tech Urol 1997; 3: 123.

  13. 16.Wolf JS Jr., Nakada SY. Hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy: comparison to standardlaparoscopic nephrectomy. J Urol 1998; 160: 22.

  14. 17.Nakada SY, et al. Hand-assisted laparoscopic nefrectomy. J Endourology 1999; 13: 9.

  15. 18.Memon MA, et al. Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALN): a useful technique for complex laparoscopic abdominal procedures. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg A 1998; 8: 143.

  16. 19.Clínicas Urológicas de Norteamérica. Laparoscopia urológica avanzada. Editorial McGraw-Hill-Interamericana; 2001.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com

Mi perfil

C?MO CITAR (Vancouver)

Bol Col Mex Urol. 2006;21