Simforoosh Nasser, Basiri Abbas, Shakhssalim Nasser, Gooran Shahram, Tabibi Ali, Khoshdel Ali, Ziaee Seyed Amir Mohsen
Shahid Labbafinejad Medical Center, Urology and Nephrology Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University, M.C., Tehran, IR Iran.
Exp Clin Transplant. 2012 Oct;10(5):428-32. doi: 10.6002/ect.2012.0010.
To evaluate and compare the long-term graft and survival rates in kidney transplant recipients who had undergone laparoscopic donor nephrectomy versus those who underwent open donor nephrectomy.
Our study was done with 100 cases of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy and 100 cases of open donor nephrectomy, performed between July 2001 and September 2003. Mean follow-up of recipients in this study was 6.6 ± 2.4 years (range, 1-9.3 y). This study has a longer follow-up than previous randomized clinical trials. We compared patient and graft survival in recipients of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy versus those who had open donor nephrectomy.
Mean duration of kidney warm ischemia time was 8.7 ± 2.7 minutes for laparoscopic donor nephrectomy and 1.8 ± 0.92 minutes for open donor nephrectomy. There were no significant differences in 5-year graft survival between the laparoscopic donor nephrectomy and open donor nephrectomy groups (89.5% vs 84.3%; P = .96). There were no differences in delayed graft function between the laparoscopic donor nephrectomy and open donor nephrectomy groups (8 and 11 patients; P = .135). There was a significant difference in 5-year graft survival between recipients with a history of delayed graft function and those without delayed graft function (63.2% vs 89.7%; P = .04). Despite a longer warm ischemia time in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy group (8.69 vs 1.87 min; P = .0001), warm ischemia time had no effect on graft outcome in long-term follow-up.
Although earlier experiences with laparoscopic donor nephrectomies were associated with concerns about long-term effects of laparoscopic donation on the graft function in the recipient, our long-term results confirm that laparoscopic donor nephrectomy provides similar graft outcome to open donor nephrectomy.
评估并比较接受腹腔镜供肾切除术的肾移植受者与接受开放性供肾切除术的肾移植受者的长期移植肾存活率及生存率。
我们的研究纳入了2001年7月至2003年9月期间进行的100例腹腔镜供肾切除术和100例开放性供肾切除术病例。本研究中受者的平均随访时间为6.6±2.4年(范围1 - 9.3年)。本研究的随访时间比以往的随机临床试验更长。我们比较了腹腔镜供肾切除术受者与开放性供肾切除术受者的患者及移植肾存活率。
腹腔镜供肾切除术的肾热缺血平均时间为8.7±2.7分钟,开放性供肾切除术为1.8±0.92分钟。腹腔镜供肾切除术组与开放性供肾切除术组的5年移植肾存活率无显著差异(89.5%对84.3%;P = 0.96)。腹腔镜供肾切除术组与开放性供肾切除术组的移植肾功能延迟发生率无差异(分别为8例和11例患者;P = 0.135)。有移植肾功能延迟病史的受者与无移植肾功能延迟病史的受者的5年移植肾存活率有显著差异(63.2%对89.7%;P = 0.04)。尽管腹腔镜供肾切除术组的热缺血时间更长(8.69对1.87分钟;P = 0.0001),但在长期随访中热缺血时间对移植肾结局无影响。
尽管早期腹腔镜供肾切除术的经验引发了对腹腔镜供肾对受者移植肾功能长期影响的担忧,但我们的长期结果证实,腹腔镜供肾切除术与开放性供肾切除术的移植肾结局相似。