AIM To compare laparoscopic and open living donor neph-rectomy, based on the results from a single center during a decade.METHODS This is a retrospective review of all living donor neph-rectomies performed at the Mass...AIM To compare laparoscopic and open living donor neph-rectomy, based on the results from a single center during a decade.METHODS This is a retrospective review of all living donor neph-rectomies performed at the Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, between 1/1998 - 12/2009. Overall there were 490 living donors, with 279 undergoing laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy （LLDN） and 211 undergoing open donor nephrectomy （OLDN）. Demographic data, operating room time, the effect of the learning curve, the number of conversions from laparoscopic to open surgery, donor preoperative glomerular fltration rate and creatinine （Cr）, donor and recipient postoperative Cr, delayed graft function and donor complications were analyzed. Statistical analysis was performed.RESULTSOverall there was no statistically significant differencebetween the LLDN and the OLDN groups regardingoperating time, donor preoperative renal function, donorand recipient postoperative kidney function, delayed graftfunction or the incidence of major complications. Whenthe last 100 laparoscopic cases were analyzed, there wasa statistically significant difference regarding operatingtime in favor of the LLDN, pointing out the importanceof the learning curve. Furthermore, another significantdifference between the two groups was the decreasedlength of stay for the LLDN （2.87 d for LLDN vs 3.6 d for OLDN）.CONCLUSION Recognizing the importance of the learning curve, this paper provides evidence that LLDN has a safety profle comparable to OLDN and decreased length of stay for the donor.展开更多
文摘AIM To compare laparoscopic and open living donor neph-rectomy, based on the results from a single center during a decade.METHODS This is a retrospective review of all living donor neph-rectomies performed at the Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, between 1/1998 - 12/2009. Overall there were 490 living donors, with 279 undergoing laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy （LLDN） and 211 undergoing open donor nephrectomy （OLDN）. Demographic data, operating room time, the effect of the learning curve, the number of conversions from laparoscopic to open surgery, donor preoperative glomerular fltration rate and creatinine （Cr）, donor and recipient postoperative Cr, delayed graft function and donor complications were analyzed. Statistical analysis was performed.RESULTSOverall there was no statistically significant differencebetween the LLDN and the OLDN groups regardingoperating time, donor preoperative renal function, donorand recipient postoperative kidney function, delayed graftfunction or the incidence of major complications. Whenthe last 100 laparoscopic cases were analyzed, there wasa statistically significant difference regarding operatingtime in favor of the LLDN, pointing out the importanceof the learning curve. Furthermore, another significantdifference between the two groups was the decreasedlength of stay for the LLDN （2.87 d for LLDN vs 3.6 d for OLDN）.CONCLUSION Recognizing the importance of the learning curve, this paper provides evidence that LLDN has a safety profle comparable to OLDN and decreased length of stay for the donor.
