5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Die ersten 50 roboterassistierten Donornephrektomien : „Lessons learned“ Translated title: The first 50 robot-assisted donor nephrectomies : Lessons learned

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Hintergrund

          Die minimal-invasive Donornephrektomie (DN) ist inzwischen operativer Standard, bezüglich der Rolle von roboterassistierten Verfahren gibt es bisher keinen Konsens.

          Fragestellung

          Die ersten 50 transperitonealen roboterassistierten Donornephrektomien (RDN) einer urologischen Universitätsklinik in Deutschland wurden retrospektiv ausgewertet.

          Material und Methoden

          Patientencharakteristika, intra- und postoperative Parameter wurden erfasst und die Nierenfunktion in einem 5‑jährigen Follow-up ausgewertet. Signifikante Prädiktoren für die Nierenfunktion bei Entlassung und ein Jahr postoperativ wurden in einem multivariablen Regressionsmodell bestimmt.

          Ergebnisse

          Die RDN hat exzellente Ergebnisse mit niedriger Komplikationsrate, kurzer warmer (WIZ) und kalter Ischämiezeit (KIZ) sowie geringem Blutverlust und kurzer Patientenverweildauer. Die Seite der Nierenentnahme hat hierauf keine Auswirkungen. Nach RDN sind etwa 50 % der Spender formal niereninsuffizient, was aber zumeist ohne Relevanz ist, weil sich die Nierenfunktion der Spender im Follow-up nicht weiter verschlechtert. Die postoperative Nierenfunktion lässt sich bei der RDN mithilfe der präoperativen eGFR (errechnete glomeruläre Filtrationsrate) und dem Spenderalter sehr gut vorhersagen.

          Schlussfolgerungen

          Die robotische DN stellt eine sehr gute Alternative zu anderen minimal-invasiven Operationsverfahren dar, die von Beginn an exzellente operative Ergebnisse ermöglicht.

          Translated abstract

          Background

          Minimally invasive donor nephrectomy (DN) is considered the gold standard, but the role of robot-assisted surgery is still controversial.

          Objectives

          The first 50 robot-assisted DN (RDN) of a urologic transplant department in Germany were retrospectively analyzed.

          Materials and methods

          Patient characteristics as well as intra- and postoperative surgical parameters were obtained. The kidney function of the donor was assessed within 5 years of follow-up. Predictors of postoperative kidney function at discharge and 1 year after RDN were estimated by multivariate regression analysis.

          Results

          RDN has an excellent surgical outcome with low complication rates, short warm (WIT) and cold ischemia time (CIT), little blood loss, and short patient stay. The side of donor nephrectomy does not affect surgical outcome. After RDN, 50% of donors suffer from mild to moderate renal insufficiency without further consequences, as their kidney function does not further decrease. Preoperative eGFR (estimated glomerular filtration rate) and donor age at surgery are the best predictors of postoperative kidney function after RDN.

          Conclusions

          Robot-assisted donor nephrectomy is an excellent alternative to other minimally invasive approaches rendering solid surgical results possible right from the start.

          Related collections

          Most cited references29

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Risk of end-stage renal disease following live kidney donation.

          Risk of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in kidney donors has been compared with risk faced by the general population, but the general population represents an unscreened, high-risk comparator. A comparison to similarly screened healthy nondonors would more properly estimate the sequelae of kidney donation.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Long-term consequences of kidney donation.

            The long-term renal consequences of kidney donation by a living donor are attracting increased appropriate interest. The overall evidence suggests that living kidney donors have survival similar to that of nondonors and that their risk of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) is not increased. Previous studies have included relatively small numbers of donors and a brief follow-up period. We ascertained the vital status and lifetime risk of ESRD in 3698 kidney donors who donated kidneys during the period from 1963 through 2007; from 2003 through 2007, we also measured the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and urinary albumin excretion and assessed the prevalence of hypertension, general health status, and quality of life in 255 donors. The survival of kidney donors was similar to that of controls who were matched for age, sex, and race or ethnic group. ESRD developed in 11 donors, a rate of 180 cases per million persons per year, as compared with a rate of 268 per million per year in the general population. At a mean (+/-SD) of 12.2+/-9.2 years after donation, 85.5% of the subgroup of 255 donors had a GFR of 60 ml per minute per 1.73 m(2) of body-surface area or higher, 32.1% had hypertension, and 12.7% had albuminuria. Older age and higher body-mass index, but not a longer time since donation, were associated with both a GFR that was lower than 60 ml per minute per 1.73 m(2) and hypertension. A longer time since donation, however, was independently associated with albuminuria. Most donors had quality-of-life scores that were better than population norms, and the prevalence of coexisting conditions was similar to that among controls from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) who were matched for age, sex, race or ethnic group, and body-mass index. Survival and the risk of ESRD in carefully screened kidney donors appear to be similar to those in the general population. Most donors who were studied had a preserved GFR, normal albumin excretion, and an excellent quality of life. 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              What is the evidence for the use of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum? A systematic review

              Background Laparoscopic surgery has several advantages when compared to open surgery, including faster postoperative recovery and lower pain scores. However, for laparoscopy, a pneumoperitoneum is required to create workspace between the abdominal wall and intraabdominal organs. Increased intraabdominal pressure may also have negative implications on cardiovascular, pulmonary, and intraabdominal organ functionings. To overcome these negative consequences, several trials have been performed comparing low- versus standard-pressure pneumoperitoneum. Methods A systematic review of all randomized controlled clinical trials and observational studies comparing low- versus standard-pressure pneumoperitoneum. Results and conclusions Quality assessment showed that the overall quality of evidence was moderate to low. Postoperative pain scores were reduced by the use of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum. With appropriate perioperative measures, the use of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum does not seem to have clinical advantages as compared to standard pressure on cardiac and pulmonary function. Although there are indications that low-pressure pneumoperitoneum is associated with less liver and kidney injury when compared to standard-pressure pneumoperitoneum, this does not seem to have clinical implications for healthy individuals. The influence of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum on adhesion formation, anastomosis healing, tumor metastasis, intraocular and intracerebral pressure, and thromboembolic complications remains uncertain, as no human clinical trials have been performed. The influence of pressure on surgical conditions and safety has not been established to date. In conclusion, the most important benefit of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum is lower postoperative pain scores, supported by a moderate quality of evidence. However, the quality of surgical conditions and safety of the use of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum need to be established, as are the values and preferences of physicians and patients regarding the potential benefits and risks. Therefore, the recommendation to use low-pressure pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopy is weak, and more studies are required.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                philip.zeuschner@uks.eu
                Journal
                Urologe A
                Urologe A
                Der Urologe. Ausg. a
                Springer Medizin (Heidelberg )
                0340-2592
                1433-0563
                11 August 2020
                11 August 2020
                2020
                : 59
                : 12
                : 1512-1518
                Affiliations
                GRID grid.473621.5, ISNI 0000 0001 2072 3087, Klinik für Urologie und Kinderurologie, , Universitätsklinikum des Saarlandes und Medizinische Fakultät der Universität des Saarlandes, ; Kirrberger Straße 100, 66421 Homburg/Saar, Deutschland
                Article
                1302
                10.1007/s00120-020-01302-w
                7721693
                32780177
                9411da1c-c116-467c-bbd3-96721713e9d4
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Open Access. Dieser Artikel wird unter der Creative Commons Namensnennung 4.0 International Lizenz veröffentlicht, welche die Nutzung, Vervielfältigung, Bearbeitung, Verbreitung und Wiedergabe in jeglichem Medium und Format erlaubt, sofern Sie den/die ursprünglichen Autor(en) und die Quelle ordnungsgemäß nennen, einen Link zur Creative Commons Lizenz beifügen und angeben, ob Änderungen vorgenommen wurden.

                Die in diesem Artikel enthaltenen Bilder und sonstiges Drittmaterial unterliegen ebenfalls der genannten Creative Commons Lizenz, sofern sich aus der Abbildungslegende nichts anderes ergibt. Sofern das betreffende Material nicht unter der genannten Creative Commons Lizenz steht und die betreffende Handlung nicht nach gesetzlichen Vorschriften erlaubt ist, ist für die oben aufgeführten Weiterverwendungen des Materials die Einwilligung des jeweiligen Rechteinhabers einzuholen.

                Weitere Details zur Lizenz entnehmen Sie bitte der Lizenzinformation auf http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.de.

                History
                Funding
                Funded by: Universitätsklinikum des Saarlandes und Medizinische Fakultät der Universität des Saarlandes (8981)
                Categories
                Originalien
                Custom metadata
                © Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2020

                nierentransplantation,nierenlebendspende,minimal-invasive chirurgie,roboterassistiertes operieren,roboterassistierte donornephrektomie,kidney transplantation,living kidney donation,minimally-invasive surgical procedures,robot-assisted surgery,robot-assisted donor nephrectomy

                Comments

                Comment on this article