Department of Urology, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York, USA.
J Urol. 2011 Oct;186(4):1386-90. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.05.053.
We compared postoperative complications of laparoendoscopic single site and standard laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy using a standardized complication reporting system.
We retrospectively analyzed the records of consecutive patients who underwent a total of 663 laparoscopic living donor nephrectomies and 101 laparoendoscopic single site donor nephrectomies. All data were recorded retrospectively. The 30-day complication rate was compiled and graded using the modified Clavien complication scale. Multivariate binary logistic regression was used to determine independent predictors of complications.
Baseline demographics were comparable between the groups. Compared to those with laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy patients who underwent laparoendoscopic single site donor nephrectomy had a shorter hospital stay and less estimated blood loss but longer operative time (p <0.05) as well as higher oral but lower intravenous in hospital analgesic requirements (p <0.05). Mean warm ischemia time was marginally lower in the laparoendoscopic single site donor nephrectomy group (3.9 vs 4 minutes, p = 0.03). At 30 days there was no difference in the overall complication rate between the laparoscopic living and laparoendoscopic single site donor nephrectomy groups (7.1% vs 7.9%, p >0.05). There were 8 major complications (grade 3 to 5) in the laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy group but only 1 in the laparoendoscopic single site group. Multivariate binary logistic regression analysis revealed that estimated blood loss was a predictor of fewer complications at 30 days.
With appropriate patient selection and operative experience laparoendoscopic single site donor nephrectomy may be a safe procedure associated with postoperative outcomes similar to those of laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy as well as low morbidity. Using a standardized complication system can aid in counseling potential donors in the future.
我们使用标准化并发症报告系统比较了经皮内镜下单部位与标准腹腔镜活体供肾切除术的术后并发症。
我们回顾性分析了连续接受总共 663 例腹腔镜活体供肾切除术和 101 例经皮内镜下单部位供肾切除术的患者的记录。所有数据均回顾性记录。使用改良的 Clavien 并发症分级系统对 30 天内的并发症发生率进行了编译和分级。采用多变量二项逻辑回归确定并发症的独立预测因素。
两组患者的基线人口统计学特征无差异。与接受腹腔镜活体供肾切除术的患者相比,接受经皮内镜下单部位供肾切除术的患者住院时间更短,估计失血量更少,但手术时间更长(p<0.05),口服但静脉内住院镇痛需求较低(p<0.05)。经皮内镜下单部位供肾切除术组的平均热缺血时间略有降低(3.9 与 4 分钟,p=0.03)。30 天内,腹腔镜活体与经皮内镜下单部位供肾切除术组的总并发症发生率无差异(7.1%与 7.9%,p>0.05)。腹腔镜活体供肾切除术组有 8 例严重并发症(3-5 级),而经皮内镜下单部位组仅 1 例。多变量二项逻辑回归分析显示,估计失血量是 30 天内并发症较少的预测因素。
在适当的患者选择和手术经验下,经皮内镜下单部位供肾切除术可能是一种安全的手术,其术后结果与腹腔镜活体供肾切除术相似,且发病率较低。使用标准化并发症系统有助于为潜在供体提供未来的咨询。