Fonouni H, Mehrabi A, Golriz M, Zeier M, Müller-Stich B P, Schemmer P, Werner J
Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2014 Jun;399(5):543-51. doi: 10.1007/s00423-014-1196-4. Epub 2014 Apr 28.
Kidney transplantation (KTx) is considered to be the treatment of choice for end stage renal disease. One of the most challenging dilemmas in KTx is the shortage of suitable organs. The live donor nephrectomy is considered a unique operation performed on healthy donors, which provides a superior outcome in the recipients. Several surgical techniques have been developed so far to minimize donor postoperative complications as much as possible without compromising the quality of the kidney. The development of a minimally invasive surgery, laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (LDN), was based on this concept.
By searching the pubmed, we reviewed the most evidence based clinical studies specifically randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses to give an overview of the efficacy and safety of LDN versus ODN.
The advantages of a LDN vs. a conventional open donor nephrectomy (ODN) are a smaller incision, better wound cosmetics, a lower rate of incisional hernia and adhesion, less postoperative pain, shorter hospitalization, and earlier return to work. Some concerns are longer operative and warm ischemic times, long-term learning curve for surgeons, and the risk of more serious complications than during an ODN.
Overall, the review of literature shows that a LDN provides less postoperative pain, a shorter hospital stay, a shorter period of rehabilitation, and earlier return to normal work and physical activities in comparison to the conventional open flank nephrectomy but is comparable to the mini muscle splitting approach. The complication rate is generally lower in centers accustomed to performing LDNs; however, complications can be life threatening and could impose significant costs to the health system. Weighing the longer operation and warm ischemic time, as well as the risk of more serious complications against the advantages of a LDN mandates a precise indication. The risk-benefit assessment for choosing one procedure should be done meticulously. Even though the short-term graft function in both techniques is comparable, there is a lack of enough long-term outcome analyses. Finally, in any transplant center, the cost of the laparoscopic procedure should be considered.
肾移植(KTx)被认为是终末期肾病的首选治疗方法。肾移植中最具挑战性的难题之一是合适器官的短缺。活体供肾切除术被认为是针对健康供体进行的一种独特手术,其在受者中能带来更好的结果。迄今为止,已经开发了几种手术技术,以在不影响肾脏质量的情况下尽可能减少供体术后并发症。基于这一理念,发展出了微创手术——腹腔镜活体供肾切除术(LDN)。
通过检索PubMed,我们回顾了最具循证医学依据的临床研究,特别是随机临床试验和荟萃分析,以概述LDN与开放性供肾切除术(ODN)的疗效和安全性。
与传统开放性供肾切除术(ODN)相比,LDN的优点包括切口更小、伤口美观度更好、切口疝和粘连发生率更低、术后疼痛更少、住院时间更短以及更早恢复工作。一些担忧包括手术时间和热缺血时间更长、外科医生的长期学习曲线以及比ODN手术期间更严重并发症的风险。
总体而言,文献综述表明,与传统开放性侧腹肾切除术相比,LDN术后疼痛更少、住院时间更短、康复期更短且能更早恢复正常工作和体育活动,但与小肌劈开术相当。在习惯进行LDN手术的中心,并发症发生率通常较低;然而,并发症可能危及生命,并可能给卫生系统带来巨大成本。权衡LDN手术时间延长、热缺血时间延长以及更严重并发症的风险与LDN的优点,需要精确的手术指征。对于选择一种手术方法的风险效益评估应谨慎进行。尽管两种技术的短期移植功能相当,但缺乏足够的长期结果分析。最后,在任何移植中心,都应考虑腹腔镜手术的成本。