手助腹腔镜活体供肾切取术21例报告

目的评价手助腹腔镜活体供肾切取术(HLDN)的手术效果和近期疗效。方法回顾性分析2004年4月至2005年7月采用HLDN方法获取活体供肾21例的临床资料。供者男13例,女8例。年龄31～60岁,平均43岁。其中18例供者为血缘关系亲属供肾,3例为非血缘关系夫妻供肾。通过受者移植后肾功能恢复情况,评价HLDN的效果。结果手术皆取左肾,手术时间100～150 min,失血量30～100 ml。供肾热缺血时间2～3 min,冷缺血时间45～60 min。平均供肾动脉长度2.3 cm,静脉长度3.5 cm。HLDN手术全部成功,无中转开放,无手术并发症,术后6～7 d出院。21例受者肾移植后未发生肾功能延迟恢复,术后1周内肾功能均达到正常值。结论HLDN结合了腹腔镜活体供肾切取术和开放手术活体供肾切取术的优点,既保证了对供者的微创,又保证了供肾质量,有利于推动活体供肾移植的开展。     

手助腹腔镜与开放手术活体供肾切取术的临床研究

目的比较手助腹腔镜活体供肾切取术（HLDN）和开放手术活体供肾切取术（ODN）的临床疗效,观察术后受者移植肾近期存活情况。方法回顾性分析中南大学湘雅三医院移植中心2004年1月至2013年11月完成的341例亲属活体肾移植供、受者资料。根据供者手术方式的不同,将其分为HLDN组（103例）和ODN组（238例）。比较两组受者手术时长、切口长度、供肾热缺血时间、肾动脉长度、肾静脉长度、术中失血量、围手术期芬太尼用量、术后非甾体抗炎药（NSAIDs）用量和术后恢复劳动天数。术后48h使用视觉模拟评分（VAS）法评估两组供者疼痛程度。术后随访供、受者恢复情况,并于术后7d、1个月复查受者肾功能。连续变量采用t检验进行比较,分类变量采用Fisher确切概率法进行比较。结果HLDN组和ODN组供者切口长度分别为（6．0±0．4）cm和（13．5±1．0）cm,术中失血量分别为（45±12）mL和（151±24）mL,差异均有统计学意义（t=73．56和42．56,P均〈0．05）。两组手术时长、供肾热缺血时间、肾动脉长度、肾静脉长度相比,差异均无统计学意义（t=1．39,1．70,0．00和1．85,P均〉0．05）。103例HLDN组供者中有102例顺利完成手术,1例主动中转开放,术后发生肺部感染1例,无术后切口感染及其他严重并发症。238例ODN组供者均成功完成手术,术后切口感染1例、脂肪液化2例,术后出血通过外科止血2例,无其他手术相关并发症。HLDN组和ODN组供者术后48hVAS分别为（2．3±0．6）分和（3．9±0．9）分,围手术期芬太尼用量分别为（1．7±0．2）mg和（1．9±0．2）mg,术后NSAIDs用量分别为（22±33）mg和（47±42）mg,术后恢复劳动天数分别为（23±10）d和（44±15）d,差异均有统计学意义（t=16．52,8．48,5．37和13．00,P均〈0．05）。两组供者术后7d、1个月血清肌酐水平相比,?     

综合治疗屈光不正性弱视患儿的护理

目的探讨手辅助腹腔镜下活体供肾摘取术的手术配合方法。方法对2例供者实施手辅助腹腔镜下供肾摘取术。结果2例均取左肾，手术均获成功，手术时间分别为70和80min，2例供肾热缺血时间分别为165和195s，失血100～200ml。移植肾功能良好。结论手辅助腹腔镜下取肾可使供者的手术创伤减轻，住院时间缩短，身体恢复快。准确、熟练、默契的手术配合对顺利完成该手术有着重要的意义。     

手辅助腹腔镜下活体供肾摘取术的手术配合

目的探讨手辅助腹腔镜下活体供肾摘取术的手术配合方法。方法对2例供者实施手辅助腹腔镜下供肾摘取术。结果2例均取左肾,手术均获成功,手术时间分别为70和80 m in,2例供肾热缺血时间分别为165和195 s,失血100~200 m l。移植肾功能良好。结论手辅助腹腔镜下取肾可使供者的手术创伤减轻,住院时间缩短,身体恢复快。准确、熟练、默契的手术配合对顺利完成该手术有着重要的意义。     

手辅助腹腔镜在亲属活体供肾切取中的应用25例报告

目的 探讨手辅助腹腔镜在亲属活体供肾切取中的应用.方法 回顾性分析25名亲属活体供肾者的资料.25名供者中,男性6名,女性19名,年龄(42±17)岁.23例为亲属血缘关系供肾,2例为夫妻间供肾.分析供者选择手辅助腹腔镜下取肾术的原因、供者的手术时间、供肾热缺血时间、术中出血量、肾脏及周围脏器损伤情况、术后恢复情况及移植肾功能恢复情况,评价手辅助腹腔镜下取肾术的临床应用效果.结果 对25名亲属供者应用手辅助腹腔镜下取肾术均获成功,无中转开放手术;24例取左肾,1例取右肾;手术时间(138±42)min,供肾热缺血时间为(145±22)s,术中出血量(53±32)m1;无供肾损伤,无切口相关并发症,仅有1例发生脾包膜撕裂;术后住院时间为(7.2±1.7)d,供者均满意.调查显示,供者选择手辅助腹腔镜下取肾术的主要原因是手术损伤小、切口对外观影响较小、心理负担轻.亲属活体供肾移植后,仅有1例受者发生移植肾功能恢复延迟,其余受者的血肌酐水平均在1周内下降至正常.结论 手辅助腹腔镜下取肾术综合了传统腹腔镜技术和开放性手术取肾的优点,微创,操作方便,供肾损伤机会少,切口对外观影响较小,供者易于接受.     

机器人辅助腹腔镜活体供肾切取术31例报告

目的评估机器人辅助腹腔镜活体供肾切取术的安全性和有效性。方法回顾性分析2013年11月至2015年8月第四军医大学西京医院实施的31例机器人辅助腹腔镜活体供肾切取术的供、受者的临床资料。结果31例均顺利完成供肾切取术,手术时间110~190 min,术中出血量20~100 ml,供肾热缺血时间100~160 s,保留肾静脉长度1.8~3.0 cm,肾动脉长度1.4~2.3 cm。2例供肾取出时发生脾脏损伤,行脾脏修补术;1例供者术后出血,经止血、纠正贫血后好转。31例供者术后均随访6个月以上,均未发生远期并发症。31例受者中,1例出现移植肾功能延迟恢复,经治疗后于术后1个月血清肌酐恢复正常。移植肾存活率为100%。结论机器人辅助腹腔镜活体供肾切取术具有安全、可靠、创伤小、恢复快、不影响供肾功能等优势,可作为供肾切取有效而安全的手术方式。     

改良后腹腔镜下活体供肾切取术八例报告

目的 介绍后腹腔镜下活体供肾切取术的初步经验，探讨其临床价值及可行性。方法 术前对供受体进行血型、HLA配型及群体反应性抗体（PRA）检查，并对供体行IVU、彩超检查了解双肾功能、肾血管情况。采用经后腹腔途径对8例活体亲属供。肾者行腹腔镜取肾术。右侧卧位，后腹腔操作通过腰部置入的3个套管完成，阻断。肾血管前延长腋前线穿刺孔至6～7cm，左手伸入后腹腔内，手助下离断。肾血管并迅速取出供肾标本。结果 8例手术均取得成功。手术时间96～128min，平均112min；术中出血25～56ml，平均42ml；热缺血时间126—245s，平均152s；肾动脉长度2.8～3．2cm，平均3.0cm；。肾静脉长度3．2—3．5cm，平均3．3cm；输尿管长15—18cm，平均16cm。血管吻合顺利，开放血流后供。肾均在1min内开始泌尿。受体肾功能均在5d内恢复正常．住院时间14—15d。供体伤口引流管2～3d内拔除，住院时间4—5d。供受体均无外科并发症。结论 后腹腔镜活体供肾切取术对患者创伤小、恢复快、供肾质量好、扩大了供肾来源。在离断肾血管及取出供肾时辅以手助可缩短热缺血时间，增加动静脉长度，提高取肾的安全性。     

手助腹腔镜肾切取术在活体供肾移植中的应用体会(附30例报告)

目的:评价手助腹腔镜活体供肾切取术的安全性及临床效果。方法:分析2013年8月至2016年8月采用手助腹腔镜活体供肾切取术获取30例活体供肾的临床资料。供者男7例,女23例,均取左肾,供受体关系为:父—子5例,母—子13例,母—女2例,兄弟2例,兄—妹4例,妻—夫3例,叔—侄1例。供肾者32~63岁,平均(51.8±8.5)岁。血型相同29例,相容1例,群体反应性抗体、淋巴毒均为阴性。30例患者均行手助腹腔镜活体供肾切取,切取后常规移植给受者,记录手术时间、出血量、供体冷热缺血时间、供者住院时间、术中副损伤及供受者术后恢复情况。结果:供者均切取左肾,手术成功,无一例中转开腹,供肾切取时间105~160 min,平均(100.4±19.5)min;失血量50~110 ml,平均(52.5±24.5)ml;供肾热缺血时间2.0~3.8 min,平均(2.4±0.5)min;冷缺血时间60~90 min,平均(68.2±26.7)min。供者术后1~3 d即可进食并下床活动,平均(2.5±0.6)d;住院3~6 d,平均(4.0±1.6)d。供受体无任何手术并发症发生,受者手术均获成功。随访3个月~3年,供体肾功能均正常。2例受者分别于肾移植术后1年8个月、1年2个月因自行减药,发生排斥反应,导致移植肾肾功能丢失,恢复透析,其余受体肾功能均正常。结论:手助腹腔镜活体供肾切取术结合了腹腔镜活体供肾切取术与开放手术的优点,既减轻了手术对供者的创伤,又保证了供肾质量,是安全、可靠的手术方法。     

手助腹腔镜活体供肾切取术1例报告

目的　探讨手助腹腔镜活体供肾切取术 (HLDN)的可行性。　方法　应用Hand -PortSys tem为 1例女性 5 1岁肾移植活体供者实施HLDN。　结果　手术时间为 118min ,供肾功能良好。供者术后切口疼痛轻微 ,恢复较快。　结论　HLDN在达到微创美容效果的前提下 ,使术者增加了左手触诊与协助手术操作的能力 ,有利于产生三维立体感 ,降低了手术难度 ,缩短了手术时间 ,提高了手术安全性与成功率。     

活体亲属肾移植手术的17例报告

目的总结活体亲属肾移植的临床经验。方法对供、受者进行全面的免疫学检查，对供者行IVU检查了解分侧肾功能，行DSA或MRA、螺旋CT血管三维成像检查了解血管的变异情况之后，开放式手术摘取供肾13例，经后腹腔镜活体供肾摘取4例，按常规方法移植给受者。免疫抑制方案为环孢素A（或FK506）、霉酚酸酯（或硫唑嘌呤、雷帕鸣）、强的松三联免疫抑制剂。结果13例开放式手术时间1．5～3．0h，平均2．0h；热缺血时间1．0～1．5min，平均1．2min；术中出血量60～200ml，平均140ml，术中及术后均未输血；术后住院7～10d，平均8d。4例后腹腔镜手术时间3．0～4．5h，平均3．5h；热缺血时间2．5～3．5min，平均2．8min；术中出血量60～100ml，平均75ml，术中及术后均未输血；术后3～5d出院。移植肾血液循环恢复后10～40s泌尿，平均20s。1例受者术后45d发生轻微的急性排斥反应，应用激素冲击3d后逆转，其余受者均无并发症。随访4～60个月，人／肾存活率为100％，移植肾功能良好。结论活体亲属肾移植安全可行，取左肾尽量靠近腹主动脉壁切断肾动脉，取右肾切取少许下腔静脉片。     

Hand-assisted transperitoneal laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy

OBJECTIVE: We introduced and evaluated the advantages and disadvantages of the hand-assisted transperitoneal laparoscopic technique for living donor nephrectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In December 2001, we started using the technique of hand-assisted transperitoneal laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy (HLDN) in 10 cases. The procedure utilizes a hand-assisted device to increase safety and control of the laparoscopic technique. RESULTS: Only left nephrectomy was performed. The mean total operating and the warm ischemia times were 130 minutes and 3.0 minutes, respectively. Average lengths of renal artery and vein were 1.95 cm and 2.8 cm, respectively. There were no intraoperative or postoperative complications. CONCLUSIONS: HLDN is an easier procedure than the traditional laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy and can greatly mitigate the learning curve. HLDN has shortened warm ischemia time and operating time. It is also good for trocar placement, prevention of torsion of the kidney, control of potential bleeding at the final stage of vascular stapling, and kidney removal. Therefore, HLDN is a promising method for living donor nephrectomy.     

Laparoscopic live donor right nephrectomy: a new technique to maximize the length of the renal vein using a modified Endo GIA stapler

OBJECTIVES: To report the utilization of a modified Endo GIA vascular stapler to obtain the full length of the renal vein during transperitoneal laparoscopic live donor right nephrectomy. METHODS: We used a modified Endo GIA stapler, in which the triple staggered rows of staples were removed from the kidney donor side to obtain the full length of the right renal vein. This technique has currently been used in nine consecutive transperitoneal laparoscopic right donor nephrectomies. RESULTS: With this technique, the entire right renal vein length was harvested in all cases, without vascular complications. Mean renal warm ischemia time from clamping of the renal vessels to cold perfusion was 135s, and mean receptor postoperative glomerular filtration rate after 30 d was 67.3 ml/min. There were no graft losses. CONCLUSIONS: A novel technique for laparoscopic live donor right nephrectomy is described. It allows harvesting the full length of the right renal vein in a safe and feasible way without compromising warm ischemia time.     

Retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy: donor outcome and complication rate in comparison with three different techniques

Four surgical techniques for living donor nephrectomy were analyzed retrospectively in terms of perioperative outcome and early complication rate. A total of 182 donor nephrectomies including 69 open (OLDN), 14 fully laparoscopic (LDN), 34 hand-assisted laparoscopic (HLDN) and 65 retroperitoneoscopic (RLDN) nephrectomies were analyzed. There was a significant difference in mean operating time (OPT) between the OLDN (160 min) and RLDN (150 min) as compared to the LDN (212 min) and HLDN group (192 min) (P<0.001). Mean warm ischemia time (WIT) was significantly shorter with OLDN (114 s), RLDN (121 s) and HLDN (128 s) when compared to LDN (238 s) (P<0.001). Major complication rate was comparable among the groups. Independent of the preferred technique, donor nephrectomy is associated with complication rates. RLDN is comparable to OLDN in terms of OPT, WIT. Learning endoscopic donor nephrectomy could be associated with a higher complication rate.     

Hand-assisted and conventional laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: a comparison of two contemporary techniques

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Laparoscopic nephrectomy may make kidney donation more attractive. Modifications such as hand assistance may improve surgical outcomes. We compared our initial experience with hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy with that of the conventional laparoscopic technique. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two series of similar patients underwent conventional laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN; N = 15) or hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HLDN; N = 29). Operative time, warm ischemia time, estimated blood loss, complications, analgesic use, postoperative recovery, and serum creatinine concentration were compared. RESULTS: Open conversion was required in one HLDN patient because of intra-abdominal adhesions, and this patient was excluded from further analysis. The operative time, time to kidney extraction, and warm ischemia time were significantly shorter in the HLDN group, averaging 204.8 v 275.7 minutes, 173.4 v 239.3 minutes, and 2 minutes 21 seconds v 3 minutes 45 seconds, respectively. The intraoperative complication rates were 3.6% and 13.3%, respectively (P = 0.07). The postoperative complication rates were 6.8% and 6.7%. All grafts were functioning at the end of the study period, and there were no differences in rejection episodes, need for dialysis, complications, or nadir creatinine concentration according to the method of harvest. CONCLUSIONS: Hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy provides shorter operative and warm ischemia times without a significant increase in donor morbidity.     

Open donor, laparoscopic donor and hand assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a comparison of outcomes

PURPOSE: In experienced hands laparoscopic surgery has been shown to be safe for procuring kidneys for transplantation that function identically to open nephrectomy controls. While searching for a safer and easier approach to laparoscopic donor nephrectomy, hand assisted laparoscopic techniques have been added to the surgical armamentarium. We compare allograft function in patients with greater than 1-year followup who underwent open donor (historic series), classic laparoscopic and hand assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The charts of 48 patients who underwent open donor, laparoscopic donor or hand assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy were reviewed. Only patients with greater than 1-year followup and complete charts were included in our study. Of these patients 34 underwent consecutive laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy and 14 underwent open donor nephrectomy. Mean patient age plus or minus standard deviation (SD) was 36.5 +/- 8.4 years for donors and 29 +/- 17 for recipients at transplantation (range 13 months to 69 years). In the laparoscopic group 11 patients underwent the transperitoneal technique, and 23 underwent hand assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy. RESULTS: Total operating time was significantly reduced with the hand assisted laparoscopic technique compared with classic laparoscopy, as was the time from skin incision to kidney removal and warm ischemic time. Average warm ischemic time plus or minus SD was 3.9 +/- 0.3 minutes for laparoscopic nephrectomy and 1.6 +/- 0.2 for hand assisted laparoscopy (p <0.05). Long-term followup of serum creatinine levels revealed no significant differences among the 3 groups. Comparison of those levels for recipients of open nephrectomy versus laparoscopic and hand assisted laparoscopic techniques revealed p values greater than 0.5. No blood transfusions were necessary. Complications included adrenal vein injury in 1 patient, small bowel obstruction in 2, abdominal hernia at the trocar site in 1 and deep venous thrombosis in 1. CONCLUSIONS: Classic laparoscopic donor and hand assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomies appear to be safe procedures for harvesting kidneys. The recipient graft function is similar in the laparoscopic and open surgery groups.     

Novel technique for hand assisted laparoscopic right donor nephrectomy

PURPOSE: Most surgeons divide the renal vein with a laparoscopic stapler during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. The right renal vein is usually shorter than the left one and using the stapler on the right side can result in a higher incidence of vascular complications for right kidney recipients. We present our experience with a new technique for hand assisted laparoscopic right donor nephrectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We designed a new vascular clamp to be completely inserted into the peritoneal cavity through the hand port incision in hand assisted laparoscopy. The renal vein with a cuff of the inferior vena cava was then excised. The defect in the inferior vena cava was sutured intracorporeally. RESULTS: A total of 80 kidney donors underwent hand assisted laparoscopic right donor nephrectomy using the new technique. Mean +/- SD operative time was 184 +/- 36 minutes. Operative time was decreased in the last 30 patients to 152 +/- 22 minutes. Intracorporeal suture time on the inferior vena cava was 16 +/- 3 minutes. No intraoperative complications were noted and there was no partial or total graft loss. Mean blood loss was 50 +/- 35 cc. Mean warm ischemia time was 4 +/- 2 minutes. Hospital discharge was on postoperative day 1 or 2 in 81% of patients. Graft function was normal in 78 recipients with a day 5 postoperative serum creatinine of 1.6 +/- 0.9 mg/dl. Two recipients showed delayed graft function and were treated medically. CONCLUSIONS: This technique for hand assisted laparoscopic right donor nephrectomy has proved to be safe and reproducible. We recommend practicing laparoscopic inferior vena cava suturing in the animal laboratory before performing it in humans.     

Hand‐assisted versus total laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: comparison and technique evolution at a single center in Taiwan

Lai I‐R, Yang C‐Y, Yeh C‐C, Tsai M‐K, Lee P‐H. Hand‐assisted versus total laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: comparison and technique evolution at a single center in Taiwan.
Clin Transplant 2009 DOI: 10.1111/j.1399‐0012.2009.01173.x.
© 2009 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Abstract: Purpose: To compare the outcome of hand‐assisted laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (HLDN) and total laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (TLDN) in a single center. Methods: The demographics, complications, and outcomes were compared between successfully performed 51 HLDN and 42 TLDN. Results: The patients’ demographics including body mass index were all similar. Four conversions were excluded for the outcome analysis. The operation time of HLDN group (188 ± 62 min) was shorter, although not significantly, than that of TLDN group’s (207 ± 30 min) (p = 0.065). However, the operation time of the first 24 cases (237 ± 66 min) was significantly longer than that of the later 69 performed (180 ± 35 min). The warm ischemia time was shorter in HLDN (2.5 ± 1.3 min) compared to that of TLDN (4.1 ± 1.7 min) (p < 0.01), but the serum creatinine values (mg/dL) of recipients were equivalent (HLDN/TLDN = 1.18 ± 0.3:1.14 ± 0.3, p = 0.587). There was no difference in the length of hospital stay (6.7 vs. 6.4 d, p = 0.475). There was no graft loss, but one ureter stricture (HLDN group) and one urinary leakage (TLDN group) were recorded. Conclusions: Both HLDN and TLDN are effective and safe as reflected in graft functions and limited complications. There was a learning curve in establishing the technique of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.     

Hand-assisted laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy

BACKGROUND: Hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HLDN) may have advantages over laparoscopic donor nephrectomy, such as shorter learning curve, operation and warm ischaemia times. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of HLDN. METHODS: Between January 2000 and October 2002, 50 consecutive HLDN procedures were performed through a low transverse abdominal incision, 23 right sided and 27 left sided. RESULTS: The median age of the donors was 44 years. No HLDN required conversion to an open procedure. The median operating time for HLDN was 153 min. The median warm ischaemia time was 3 (range 1.0-4.5) min and the median blood loss was 50 (range 20-500) ml in both left- and right-sided procedures. Eight patients suffered ten minor complications during their admission. The duration of hospital stay was 5 days for donors. Three recipients developed graft failure owing to acute rejection, renal vein thrombosis and ischaemic necrosis. CONCLUSION: Both left- and right-sided HLDN procedures were feasible and safe through a low transverse abdominal incision.