Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Robotic-assisted laparoscopy living donor nephrectomy: Technique and results of a monocentric retrospective series.
Pelegrin, T; Champy, C M; Gerbaud, F; Miro-Padovani, M; Grimbert, P; Matignon, M-B; Durrbach, A; De La Taille, A; Ingels, A.
Afiliación
  • Pelegrin T; Service d'urologie, UPEC, hôpital Henri-Mondor, Créteil, France. Electronic address: tiphaine.pelegrin@aphp.fr.
  • Champy CM; Service d'urologie, UPEC, hôpital Henri-Mondor, Créteil, France.
  • Gerbaud F; Service d'urologie, UPEC, hôpital Henri-Mondor, Créteil, France.
  • Miro-Padovani M; Service d'urologie, UPEC, hôpital Henri-Mondor, Créteil, France.
  • Grimbert P; Service de néphrologie, UPEC, hôpital Henri-Mondor, Créteil, France.
  • Matignon MB; Service de néphrologie, UPEC, hôpital Henri-Mondor, Créteil, France.
  • Durrbach A; Service de néphrologie, UPEC, hôpital Henri-Mondor, Créteil, France.
  • De La Taille A; Service d'urologie, UPEC, hôpital Henri-Mondor, Créteil, France.
  • Ingels A; Service d'urologie, UPEC, hôpital Henri-Mondor, Créteil, France.
Prog Urol ; 32(8-9): 567-576, 2022 Jul.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35623941
INTRODUCTION: Robot-assisted nephrectomy for living kidney donation (LKD) has been described in the literature as a safe and reproducible technique in high volume centers with extensive robotic surgery experience. Any surgical procedure in a healthy individual ought to be safe in regards to complications. The objective of this study was to evaluate the Robotic-assisted Living Donor Nephrectomy (RLDN) experience in a robotic surgery expert center. METHODS: This is a retrospective study from 11/2011 and 12/2019. In total, 118 consecutive Living Donor (LD) kidney transplants were performed at our institution. All the procedures were performed by robotic-assisted laparoscopic approach. Extraction was performed by iliac (IE), vaginal (VE) or umbilical extraction (UE). The left kidney was preferred even if the vascular anatomy was not modal. RESULTS: For donors: the median operative time was 120min with 50mL of blood loss. The median warm ischemia time was 4min, with a non-significant shorter duration with the UE (4min) in comparison with IE or VE (5min). Nine patients had postoperative complications including 1 grade II (blood transfusion) and 1 grade IIIb (vaginal bleeding after VE). None of our procedures were converted to open surgeries and no deaths were reported. For the recipients: 1.7% presented delayed graft function; their median GFR at 1 year was 61mL/min/1.73m2. CONCLUSION: RLDN in an expert center appears to be a safe technique. The advantages of the robot device in terms of ergonomy don't hamper the surgical outcomes. Donor, recipient and graft survivals seem comparable to the reported laparoscopic outcomes in the literature.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave
Texto completo
Añadir a Mi BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar en Google

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Laparoscopía / Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Robotizados Tipo de estudio: Observational_studies Límite: Female / Humans Idioma: En Revista: Prog Urol Asunto de la revista: UROLOGIA Año: 2022 Tipo del documento: Article Pais de publicación: Francia
Texto completo
Añadir a Mi BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar en Google

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Laparoscopía / Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Robotizados Tipo de estudio: Observational_studies Límite: Female / Humans Idioma: En Revista: Prog Urol Asunto de la revista: UROLOGIA Año: 2022 Tipo del documento: Article Pais de publicación: Francia