ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Few studies have compared the quality of life (QoL) and functional recuperation of laproscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) vs. open donor nephrectomy (ODN) donors. This study utilized the SF-36 health survey, single-item health-related quality of life (HRQOL) score, and a functional assessment questionnaire ('Donor Survey'). METHODS: Questionnaires were sent to 100 LDN and 50 ODN donors. These donors were patients whose procedures were performed at The University Hospital and The Christ Hospital in Cincinnati, Ohio. RESULTS: A total of 46 (46%) LDN and 21 (42%) ODN donors returned the completed surveys. The demographics of the two groups were similar. LDN patients reported a more rapid return to 100% normal health (69 vs. 116 d; p = 0.24), part-time work (21.9 vs. 23.2 d; p = 0.09), and necessitated fewer physician office visits post-operative (2.8 vs. 4.4; p = 0.01). ODN patients reported shorter duration of oral pain medication use (13.4 vs. 7.2 d; p = 0.02). However, a greater number of ODN patients reported post-surgical chronic pain (3 vs. 6; p < 0.05) and hernia (0 vs. 2; p = 0.19). The overall QoL for both groups was comparable with the general USA population. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study support the decisions of many kidney transplant centers to adopt LDN programs as standard of care.
Subject(s)
Living Donors , Nephrectomy/methods , Adult , Female , Humans , Laparoscopy , Male , Middle Aged , Quality of Life , Recovery of Function , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: We compare the anatomic and functional outcomes of right live-donor nephrectomy (LDN) using either a hand-assisted approach (HALDN) or a pure retroperitoneoscopic approach (RLDN) in two institutions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were recorded prospectively in 59 patients undergoing right LDN using either hand-assisted (n=31) or pure retroperitoneoscopic (n=28) approaches. All HALDN cases were performed at the University of Cincinnati, and all RLDN cases were performed at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation. RESULTS: Demographics were similar with respect to age (41.1+/-11.5 vs. 44.5+/-8.5 years) and human leukocyte antigen mismatches (2.7+/-1.8 vs. 2.6+/-1.6). Operative times were longer for HALDN (3.4+/-0.7 vs. 3.0+/-0.7 hours, P <0.04), whereas warm ischemia time was shorter (3:55+/-1:47 vs. 4:55+/-0:55 minutes, P <0.001). Length of renal vein and artery were equivalent (2.4/3.4 vs. 2.3/3.2 cm, P =0.5). Complication rates were similar (10% vs. 7%, P =0.5), including conversion to open surgery (n=1), accessory upper pole artery transection (n=1), and swollen testicle (n=1) in the HALDN group, and a small parenchymal injury (n=1) and a capsular tear (n=1) in the RLDN group. Donor length of stay and convalescence were similar in both groups (43.5+/-14.1 vs. 45.7+/-25.3 hours, P =0.1; convalescence 23.5+/-5.3 vs. 20.2+/-4.1 days, P =0.5). One-week, 1-month, and 1-year serum creatinine levels were equivalent with both approaches. No grafts were lost in either group. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms that the HALDN and RLDN techniques can provide kidney grafts with equivalent-length vessels and excellent function.