RETROPERITONEOSCOPIC DONOR NEPHRECTOMY: EXPERIENCE WITH 5 YEARS
https://doi.org/10.21886/2308-6424-2016-0-4-15-23
Abstract
We modified the method of retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy and evaluated results of 5 years procedures. There were no conversions to open or hand-assisted surgery. All organs have been successfully transplanted. Retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy is safe and feasible. The method has three main advantages over conventional laparoscopic nephrectomy: the absence of contact with bowel, spleen, liver and other intra-abdominal structures, more comfortable access to the renal artery, absence of intraperitoneal pressure elevation.
About the Authors
D. V. Perlin
Volgograd Regional Uronephrological Center;
Volgograd State Medical University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Voljsky;
Department of Urology, Volgograd
I. V. Aleksandrov
Volgograd Regional Uronephrological Center;
Volgograd State Medical University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Voljsky;
Department of Urology, Volgograd
V. P. Zipunnikov
Volgograd Regional Uronephrological Center;
Volgograd State Medical University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Voljsky;
Department of Urology, Volgograd
I. N. Dymkov
Volgograd Regional Uronephrological Center;
Volgograd State Medical University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Voljsky;
Department of Urology, Volgograd
References
1. Alcaraz A., Rosales A. et al. Early experience of a living donor kidney transplant program//Eur. Urol. 2006. Vol.50. P. 542–548.
2. Delmonico F.L., Dew М.А., Living donor kidney transplantation in a global environment. Kidney Int 2007; 71 (7): 608-14.
3. Desai MM, Strzempkowski B, Matin SF, Steinberg AP, Ng C, Meraney AM, et al.: Prospective randomized comparison of transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal laparoscopic radical nephrectomy. J Urol. 2005; 173: 38-41.
4. El-Galley R., Hood N., Young C.J. et al. Donor nephrectomy: a comparison of techniques and results of open, hand-assisted and full laparoscopic nephrectomy //J. Urol. 2004. Vol. 171. P. 40–43.
5. Got'e SV, LucevichOJe, MojsjukJaG, GaljamovJeA. Laparoskopicheskajamanual'no-assistirovannajadonorskajanefrjektomija. Pervyj rossijskij opyt. Vestnik transplantologii i iskusstvennyh organov. 2010; 1: 56–60.[In Russ]
6. Johnson E.M., Remucal M.J., Gillingham K.J. et al. Complications and risks of living donor nephrectomy. Transplantation 1997; 64: 1124-1128.
7. MoysyukYa.G. Transplantatsiya pochki ot zhivogo rodstvennogo donora — novyyvzglyadipodkhody k probleme. // Vestnik transplantologii i iskusstvennykh organov. 2001. - №3-4. - p.56-62. [In Russ]
8. Norman D.J.: The kidney transplant wit-list: allocation of patients to a limited supply of organs , Semin Dial 18:456-459, 2005;
9. Ponticelli C., Kahan B. Principales and practice in renal transplantation. 3d ed. Philadelphia. P.A., WB Sanders. 2000. P. 245-258.
10. Ratner LE, Kavoussi LR, Sroka M et al. Laparoscopic assisted live donor nephrectomy – a comparison with the open approach. Transplantation. 1997 Jan 27; 63: 229–233.
11. Simforoosh N., Basiri A., Tabibi A., Shakhssalim N., and Hosseini S.M. Moghaddam. Comparison of laparoscopic and open donor nephrectomy: a randomized controlled trial // British Journal of Urology International 2005. Vol. 95. No 6. P. 851-855.
12. Sharshatkin A.V. klinicheskie i khirurgicheskie aspekty transplantatsii pochki ot zhivogo rodstvenno godonora. [Dissertation]. M. 2009. S. 160-162.
13. Troppmann C, Perez RV, McBride M. Similar long-term outcomes for laparoscopic versus open live-donor nephrectomy kidney grafts: An OPTN database analysis of 5532 adult recipients. Transplantation. 2008 Mar 27; 85: 916–919.
Review
For citations:
Perlin D.V., Aleksandrov I.V., Zipunnikov V.P., Dymkov I.N. RETROPERITONEOSCOPIC DONOR NEPHRECTOMY: EXPERIENCE WITH 5 YEARS. Urology Herald. 2016;(4):15-23. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21886/2308-6424-2016-0-4-15-23
Views:
1196
Email this article 
