Laparoscopy, dorsal lumbotomy and flank incision live donor nephrectomy: comparison of donor outcomes

Authors

  • Dinesh Samarasekera Department of Urologic Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC
  • David S.H. Kim University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC
  • Rachel Wang University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC
  • Gordon Yip University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC
  • Steven S. Tang Department of Urologic Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC
  • Christopher Nguan Department of Urologic Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.266

Abstract

Background: Flank incision (FL), dorsal lumbotomy (DL) and laparoscopic surgery have been effective approaches to donor nephrectomy. While laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) has becomeincreasingly popular, there has yet to be a direct comparison of the three modalities.

Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review of FL, DL and LDN operations between 2002 and 2010 within a single institution. Donor and recipient characteristics, as well as surgical outcomes, were assessed.

Results: There were 496 donor nephrectomy operations available for analyses. Patients in the LDN group had the lowest estimated blood loss, compared to the DL and FL groups (p < 0.001), lowest rate of complications (p < 0.01), and shortest hospital stay (p < 0.0001). Donors who underwent DL used an average of 60.12 ± 5.0 mg of morphine, which was significantly less thanthat used by patients in the LDN (93.2 mg, p < 0.0001) and FL (111.82 mg, p < 0.001) groups. Mean serum creatinine of recipientsat day 1 post-op was the highest in the FL group (p < 0.0001 FL vs. LDN, p < 0.001 FL vs. DL), but there were no significant differences between the three groups at 2 weeks, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months post-operation (p > 0.45).

Conclusions: Although a lower pain experience of LDN was not indicated, the use of LDN should be favoured over DL and FL as it is associated with fewer complications, and shorter length of stay.Of note, DL appears to be associated with higher complications and is likely not a preferred option for donor nephrectomy.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2013-02-20

How to Cite

Samarasekera, D., Kim, D. S., Wang, R., Yip, G., Tang, S. S., & Nguan, C. (2013). Laparoscopy, dorsal lumbotomy and flank incision live donor nephrectomy: comparison of donor outcomes. Canadian Urological Association Journal, 7(1-2), E69–73. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.266

Issue

Vol. 7 No. 1-2 (2013): CUAJ February

Section

Original Research

License

You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:

  • Post the Article on any Web site
  • Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.

The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.

You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.

The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:

  • That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
  • That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
  • That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
  • That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.