Comparative outcomes of hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy using midline incision or low transverse incision for hand-assisted port placement

Jun Gyo Gwon, Heungman Jun, Myung-Gyu Kim, Yoon-Jung Boo, Cheol Woong Jung

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: Hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is performed in many centers for donor nephrectomy. A midline incision for hand-assisted port placement is generally used but produces an unsightly scar. In this study, patients who had hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy with low transverse incision were compared with those who received a midline incision. Materials and Methods: Our study group included patients who received hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy from February 2012 to December 2014 at Korea University Anam Hospital. We retrospectively compared outcomes of these patients based on midline incision (45 patients) versus low transverse incision (17 patients). Risk factors, including age, sex, body mass index, creatinine level, glomerular filtration rate of allograft, side of graft kidney, number of renal arteries, duration of surgical procedure, and warm ischemic time, were compared between the midline and low transverse incision groups. Results: When we compared the midline versus low transverse incision groups, duration of surgical procedure (P = .043), postoperative day 3 glomerular filtration rate (P = .017), and postoperative day 3 pain score (P = .049) were significantly higher in the low transverse incision group versus the midline incision group. Postoperative day 3 results for duration of hospitalization (P = .030) and pain score (P = .021) were also significantly higher in the low transverse versus midline incision groups when we focused on patients with left nephrectomy. Conclusions: Hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy with low transverse incision is more painful and necessitates a longer hospital stay and longer surgical procedure. Despite these disadvantages, hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy with low transverse incision can offer a better cosmetic outcome with no definitive differences regarding renal function compared with a midline incision. Surgeons should consider these aspects when deciding on the best method for donor nephrectomy.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)282-286
Number of pages5
JournalExperimental and Clinical Transplantation
Volume14
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2016 Jun 1

Fingerprint

Nephrectomy
Hand
Tissue Donors
Glomerular Filtration Rate
Kidney
Warm Ischemia
Pain
Renal Artery
Korea
Cosmetics
Cicatrix
Allografts
Length of Stay
Creatinine
Hospitalization
Body Mass Index
Transplants

Keywords

  • Donor nephrectomy
  • Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery
  • Kidney transplant

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Transplantation

Cite this

@article{ec0122455bde49b9892250426f3dc709,
title = "Comparative outcomes of hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy using midline incision or low transverse incision for hand-assisted port placement",
abstract = "Objectives: Hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is performed in many centers for donor nephrectomy. A midline incision for hand-assisted port placement is generally used but produces an unsightly scar. In this study, patients who had hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy with low transverse incision were compared with those who received a midline incision. Materials and Methods: Our study group included patients who received hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy from February 2012 to December 2014 at Korea University Anam Hospital. We retrospectively compared outcomes of these patients based on midline incision (45 patients) versus low transverse incision (17 patients). Risk factors, including age, sex, body mass index, creatinine level, glomerular filtration rate of allograft, side of graft kidney, number of renal arteries, duration of surgical procedure, and warm ischemic time, were compared between the midline and low transverse incision groups. Results: When we compared the midline versus low transverse incision groups, duration of surgical procedure (P = .043), postoperative day 3 glomerular filtration rate (P = .017), and postoperative day 3 pain score (P = .049) were significantly higher in the low transverse incision group versus the midline incision group. Postoperative day 3 results for duration of hospitalization (P = .030) and pain score (P = .021) were also significantly higher in the low transverse versus midline incision groups when we focused on patients with left nephrectomy. Conclusions: Hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy with low transverse incision is more painful and necessitates a longer hospital stay and longer surgical procedure. Despite these disadvantages, hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy with low transverse incision can offer a better cosmetic outcome with no definitive differences regarding renal function compared with a midline incision. Surgeons should consider these aspects when deciding on the best method for donor nephrectomy.",
keywords = "Donor nephrectomy, Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery, Kidney transplant",
author = "Gwon, {Jun Gyo} and Heungman Jun and Myung-Gyu Kim and Yoon-Jung Boo and Jung, {Cheol Woong}",
year = "2016",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.6002/ect.2015.0220",
language = "English",
volume = "14",
pages = "282--286",
journal = "Experimental and Clinical Transplantation",
issn = "1304-0855",
publisher = "Baskent University",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparative outcomes of hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy using midline incision or low transverse incision for hand-assisted port placement

AU - Gwon, Jun Gyo

AU - Jun, Heungman

AU - Kim, Myung-Gyu

AU - Boo, Yoon-Jung

AU - Jung, Cheol Woong

PY - 2016/6/1

Y1 - 2016/6/1

N2 - Objectives: Hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is performed in many centers for donor nephrectomy. A midline incision for hand-assisted port placement is generally used but produces an unsightly scar. In this study, patients who had hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy with low transverse incision were compared with those who received a midline incision. Materials and Methods: Our study group included patients who received hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy from February 2012 to December 2014 at Korea University Anam Hospital. We retrospectively compared outcomes of these patients based on midline incision (45 patients) versus low transverse incision (17 patients). Risk factors, including age, sex, body mass index, creatinine level, glomerular filtration rate of allograft, side of graft kidney, number of renal arteries, duration of surgical procedure, and warm ischemic time, were compared between the midline and low transverse incision groups. Results: When we compared the midline versus low transverse incision groups, duration of surgical procedure (P = .043), postoperative day 3 glomerular filtration rate (P = .017), and postoperative day 3 pain score (P = .049) were significantly higher in the low transverse incision group versus the midline incision group. Postoperative day 3 results for duration of hospitalization (P = .030) and pain score (P = .021) were also significantly higher in the low transverse versus midline incision groups when we focused on patients with left nephrectomy. Conclusions: Hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy with low transverse incision is more painful and necessitates a longer hospital stay and longer surgical procedure. Despite these disadvantages, hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy with low transverse incision can offer a better cosmetic outcome with no definitive differences regarding renal function compared with a midline incision. Surgeons should consider these aspects when deciding on the best method for donor nephrectomy.

AB - Objectives: Hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is performed in many centers for donor nephrectomy. A midline incision for hand-assisted port placement is generally used but produces an unsightly scar. In this study, patients who had hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy with low transverse incision were compared with those who received a midline incision. Materials and Methods: Our study group included patients who received hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy from February 2012 to December 2014 at Korea University Anam Hospital. We retrospectively compared outcomes of these patients based on midline incision (45 patients) versus low transverse incision (17 patients). Risk factors, including age, sex, body mass index, creatinine level, glomerular filtration rate of allograft, side of graft kidney, number of renal arteries, duration of surgical procedure, and warm ischemic time, were compared between the midline and low transverse incision groups. Results: When we compared the midline versus low transverse incision groups, duration of surgical procedure (P = .043), postoperative day 3 glomerular filtration rate (P = .017), and postoperative day 3 pain score (P = .049) were significantly higher in the low transverse incision group versus the midline incision group. Postoperative day 3 results for duration of hospitalization (P = .030) and pain score (P = .021) were also significantly higher in the low transverse versus midline incision groups when we focused on patients with left nephrectomy. Conclusions: Hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy with low transverse incision is more painful and necessitates a longer hospital stay and longer surgical procedure. Despite these disadvantages, hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy with low transverse incision can offer a better cosmetic outcome with no definitive differences regarding renal function compared with a midline incision. Surgeons should consider these aspects when deciding on the best method for donor nephrectomy.

KW - Donor nephrectomy

KW - Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery

KW - Kidney transplant

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84971408251&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84971408251&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.6002/ect.2015.0220

DO - 10.6002/ect.2015.0220

M3 - Article

VL - 14

SP - 282

EP - 286

JO - Experimental and Clinical Transplantation

JF - Experimental and Clinical Transplantation

SN - 1304-0855

IS - 3

ER -