腹腔镜技术获取活体供肾的基础研究

目的探讨建立小猪腹腔镜活体供肾切取和原位肾移植模型的可行性以及CO2气腹对小猪移植肾功能恢复及组织形态的影响。方法 40头滇南小耳猪经配型分为CO2气腹腹腔镜活体供肾切取组（LDN组,n=20）和开放活体供肾切取组（ODN组,n=20）,每组供、受体均为10头;两组分别采用腹腔镜和开放手术经腹膜后入路切取供肾后行原位肾移植。术后监测尿量、血清肌酐（SCr）及血尿素氮（BUN）;术后30d切取移植肾组织制作石蜡切片用于组织病理检查。结果 LDN组和ODN组均成功建立6例小猪原位肾移植模型,移植成功率均为60%（6/10）。LDN组和ODN组热缺血时间分别为（89±6）s和（30±11）s,差异有统计学意义（t=11.53,P〈0.05）。术后第3天LDN组和ODN组SCr分别为（152±16）μmol/L和（126±8）μmol/L,BUN分别为（7.26±0.99）mmol/L和（2.87±0.39）mmol/L,差异均有统计学意义（F=11.003,P〈0.05;F=6.303,P〈0.05）;术后第7天LDN组和ODN组SCr分别为（121±5）μmol/L和（89±10）μmol/L,BUN分别为（2.87±0.39）mmol/L和（1.63±0.38）mmol/L,差异均有统计学意义（F=48.301,P〈0.05;F=31.719,P〈0.05）。移植肾组织病理检查结果：HE染色显示LDN组移植肾肾小管上皮细胞损伤、肾间质水肿及炎性细胞浸润较ODN组稍重,但差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）;过碘酸-Schiff染色及Masson染色显示两组移植肾病理改变无特异性。结论腹腔镜活体供肾切取术可影响移植肾的早期恢复,但对术后晚期移植肾功能及病理改变的影响与开放活体供肾切取术比较无差异。建立小猪经腹膜后入路腹腔镜活体供肾切取和原位肾移植模型具有可行性。     

腹腔镜技术在活体肾移植供肾切取中的应用价值

自1995年Ratner完成首例腹腔镜活体供肾切取(laparoscopy donor nephrectomy，LDN)以来，LDN已在肾移植术中得到广泛应用。本就LDN时CO2气腹对肾功能的影响及供肾切取的技术进展做一综述。     

腹腔镜活体供肾肾移植

腹腔镜活体供肾肾移植是近年为增加供肾来源而开展的一种新的活体肾移植。本文对其手术方法，与常规开放式活体取肾术比较及反对和赞成的观点进行阐述。     

腹腔镜活体供肾切取术10例报告

目的　探讨活体供肾切取新方法。方法　对 10名亲属活体供肾者采用腹腔镜切取供肾 ,供者采用全身麻醉 ,经腹腔途径 ,取右侧卧位 ,在脐旁、剑突下偏右及左腹股沟韧带中点上方1.5cm各开一孔 ,脐旁放入观察镜 ,另两孔为操作孔。供肾经左下腹操作孔的延长切口用手取出。供、受者术后随访 2～ 12个月。结果　供肾切取耗时 (3.6± 0 .6 )h ,热缺血时间平均 4 .5min ;供者术后无并发症发生 ,肾功能正常 ,住院时间 (5± 1)d ,术后 2个月内均恢复正常工作。结论　腹腔镜活体供肾切取术是一种创伤小的供肾切取方法 ,供者术后疼痛轻 ,恢复快。     

腹腔镜活体供肾肾移植

腹腔镜活体供肾肾移植是近年为增加供肾来源而开展的一种新的活体肾移植。本文对其手术方法 ,与常规开放式活体取肾术比较及反对和赞成的观点进行阐述。     

3D后腹腔镜下活体供肾切取术的临床分析

目的总结3D后腹腔镜下活体供肾切取术的经验,并探讨其临床效果和安全性。方法收集19例3D后腹腔镜下活体供肾切取术的临床资料。记录手术时间、术中失血量、肾脏热缺血时间、肾动脉长度、肾静脉长度、输尿管长度、切口长度、手术并发症。观察供、受者术后肾功能的情况等。结果 19例活体供肾切取术均在3D后腹腔镜下顺利完成,无术中改为常规腹腔镜和中转开放者。3D后腹腔镜下活体供肾切取术手术时间80.5~125.2(平均102.3)min;术中出血量40.6~90.4(60.8)ml;肾脏热缺血时间100~230(161)s。供肾动脉长度2.6~3.2(2.9)cm;供肾静脉长度2.2~3.0(2.6)cm;供肾输尿管长度8~13(10)cm;切口长度约5~6 cm,伤口愈合良好;供者术后24 h尿量2 000~2 500 ml;术后3 d查血清肌酐轻度增高1例,术后7 d和1个月复查血清肌酐恢复正常。术后住院时间5~7(6)d。移植手术均获成功,未发生移植肾功能延迟恢复。结论 3D腹腔镜手术系统可有效提高术中操作的精准性,3D后腹腔镜下活体供肾切取术安全可行。     

内视镜下小切口亲属活体供肾切取术

目前，亲属活体供。肾移植渐趋广泛，并被人们所接受，常用的亲属活体供。肾切取术式有以下三种：开放式活体供。肾切取术（ODN）、腹腔镜下活体供。肾切取术（LDN）和手辅助腹腔镜活体供肾切取术。许多移植中心采用腹腔镜下活体供肾切取术。最近，我们与韩国YonSei大学Seung Chou Yang教授合作，运用自主开发的手术器械，共对6例活体供肾移植的供者成功地实施了内视镜下小切口活体供。肾切取术，总结报告如下：     

68例腹腔镜活体供肾切取术的临床研究

目的:总结68例腹腔镜活体供肾切取术(laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy,LDN)的临床经验。方法:回顾分析2004年5月至2008年4月我院施行的LDN68例的临床资料,对手术时间,供肾热缺血时间,术中失血量,肾动、静脉长度进行统计,并对数据按照取左、右肾进行分组比较。根据改良的Clavien分级系统对围手术期并发症情况进行分析。术后对供者血肌酐(SCr),肾小球滤过率(GFR),24h尿蛋白定量水平,血压水平以及受者的肾功能情况进行随访。结果:68例LDN手术均取得成功,手术时间为(87.5±7.8)min,供肾热缺血时间为(85.6±13.1)s,术中失血量为(56.8±8.5)ml,肾动脉长度为(3.0±0.3)cm,肾静脉长度为(2.3±0.3)cm,按照取左右肾手术时间分别为(89.5±8.4)min和(86.8±7.2)min(P>0.05),供肾热缺血时间为(86.7±12.3)s和(85.2±14.1)s(P>0.05),术中失血量为(58.2±10.2)ml和(55.4±9.4)ml,(P>0.05),肾动脉长度为(2.5±0.3)cm和(3.5±0.3)cm(P<0.0001),肾静脉长度为(3.2±0.4)cm和(1.6±0.3)cm(P<0.0001)。围手术期3例(4.4%)出现并发症,其中Grade2b级1例,Grade1级2例。肾移植手术均获成功,受者在1周内肾功恢复正常,1例受者术后6个月并发肺部感染死亡。供者术后SCr,24h尿蛋白定量水平,GFR值维持在正常范围内,无新发高血压患者出现。结论:LDN安全、微创,完善LDN操作技术,加强对供者术后随访十分重要。     

后腹腔镜技术活体亲属供肾切取的可行性研究(附10例报告)

目的 :探讨利用后腹腔镜技术行活体亲属供肾切取的安全性和可行性。方法 :在对供受者进行全面的免疫学检查 ,对供者作详细的安全性评价 ,行SPECT检查了解分侧肾功能 ,用DSA了解肾血管的变异情况之后 ,采用后腹腔镜技术对 10例活体亲属供肾进行切取 ,按常规方法移植给受者。结果 :10例均成功切取左肾并移植给受者 ,平均手术时间 (10 2 .6± 19.3)min ,平均术中出血量 (13.0± 9.8)ml,热缺血时间平均 (14 1.8± 72 .1)s,受体血管开放后供肾均泌尿 ,其中 1例患者移植后 1周发生输尿管远端坏死漏尿 ,再次手术后恢复正常。术后无排斥反应及其他与操作技术有关的并发症发生。结论 :利用腹腔镜技术行活体亲属供肾切取对供者损伤小 ,术后恢复快 ,对供肾功能无明显影响 ,技术上安全可行     

Beagle犬腹腔镜活体供肾-移植模型的建立

目的 探讨Beagle犬腹腔镜活体供肾-移植模型建立的安全性和可行性。方法 8条beagle犬随机分为两组,实验组行腹腔镜左肾供肾切取术,对照组行开放左肾供肾切取术,两组分别行组内同种异体肾移植术并置于左侧髂窝,同时切除白体右肾。统计两组取肾手术时间、术中失血量、热缺血时间、切口长度,肾移植手术时间、术中失血量、供肾动静脉吻合时间等手术指标及术后实验犬肌酐、尿素氮变化情况。结果 实验组腹腔镜供肾切取术均成功完成,无一例中转开腹,其中供肾切取手术时间(61.5±11.0)min,术中失血量(13.9±6.8) ml,供肾热缺血时间(81.4±9.3)s;对照组开放供肾切取术,无一例失败,其中供肾切取手术时间(66.1 ±13.5) min,术中失血量(32.7±4.8) ml,供肾热缺血时间(28.5±5.6)s;8例次同种异体肾移植术,全部成功,受体移植手术时间(87.3±13.9) min,术中失血量(13.5±5.2) ml,动脉吻合时间(19.8±6.7) min,静脉吻合时间(22.8±3.5) min,术后1个月观察期间内,无漏尿、出血、感染等并发症发生,术后第3天实验犬肌酐、尿素氮指标恢复正常。结论 Beagle犬腹腔镜活体供肾-移植模型的建立操作相对简便、容易掌握,成活率高,安全、可靠。     

Hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: comparison to pure laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery is assumed to be easier to learn than the standard approach and simplifies intact kidney removal. Herein we have presented our experience performing hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN) compared with contemporary pure laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN). We retrospectively analyzed 55 patients who underwent LDN. Among the procedures, 21 were HALDN and 34 were pure LDN. We compared the two groups with regard to operative time, warm ischemic time (WIT), estimated blood loss, conversion rate, postoperative stay, and complications. For the HALDN group, the mean operative time was 191 minutes, WIT varied from 2 to 11 minutes, and bleeding estimates varied from 100 to 4000 mL. The overall complication rate of 28.6% included: vessel injury, urinary leakage, and paralytic ileus. In the LDN group, the mean operative time was 184 minutes, WIT varied from 2 to 10 minutes, and bleeding estimated varied 100 to 3000 mL. Three patients (8.8%) had complications including ureteral obstruction (n = 1) and vessel injury (n = 2). There was no significant difference between the two groups about the procedure and the complications. Our series suggested that HALDN and LDN were similar, with a tendency toward better results in LDN group, which also shows lower costs.     

Hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

Background: The hand-assisted approach to laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) might minimize the learning curve and shorten both the operation and the warm ischemia time. Our initial results from hand-assisted LDN are presented and compared with data from the literature. Methods: From January to September 2000, ten hand-assisted LDNs of the right kidney were performed. Results: The median operation time was 140 min (range, 120--400 min), and the warm ischemia time was 2.5 min (range, 1--4 min). There were no conversions. Postoperative morbidity included one urinary tract infection. All but one patient returned to a normal diet within 48 h. Opiates were needed a maximum of 48 h. One recipient experienced initial loss of graft function as a result of unknown causes. Conclusions: Even at the beginning of the learning curve, operation time and warm ischemia time are significantly reduced by the hand-assisted approach, as compared with conventional LDN. apd: 3 April 2001     

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.     

Techniques in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Innovations in laparoscopic surgery have provided transplant surgeons with a range of techniques as well as a vast array of minimally invasive instruments. Whilst randomized control trials have compared open and laparoscopic donor nephrectomy, there is a paucity of high quality data comparing different laparoscopic approaches. This article summarizes the main techniques of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy currently in use and reviews the evidence available for each. In addition, controversial aspects of donor nephrectomy are examined, including the technological advances applicable to this operation. Increasing numbers of living donor kidney transplants are being performed worldwide, and the majority of donor operations are now laparoscopic. Transperitoneal ‘pure’ and hand‐assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy are the two most commonly performed procedures, although retroperitoneal approaches are advocated by some centres. Controversy persists with respect to the technical aspects of donor nephrectomy, including both the approach and the method of ligation of the hilar vessels. More recently, robot‐assisted, laparo‐endoscopic single site surgery (LESS) and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) ‐assisted donor nephrectomy have also been performed, further increasing the number of options available, but creating uncertainty as to the ideal approach.     

Rhabdomyolysis after laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

Rhabdomyolysis is a postoperative complication that may result in acute renal failure owing to excessive myoglobinuria. After uncomplicated laparoscopic left transperitoneal donor nephrectomy, a 32-year-old man developed anuric acute renal failure secondary to postoperative rhabdomyolysis that required intermittent hemodialysis for 2 weeks. The presumed risk factors in this case were the patient's high body mass index, intraoperative flank position with flexion, a solitary kidney, and the duration of surgery. Our current surgical technique has been modified to drop the kidney bridge early, immediately after visualization of the hilum.     

经腹腔手辅助腹腔镜活体供肾摘取术

目的：介绍经腹腔手辅助腹腔镜活体供肾摘取术（HLDN）。方法：供肾者5例，行经腹腔的手辅助腹腔镜活体供肾摘取术，总结手术方法。结果：平均手术时间116min，供肾平均热缺血时间2．8min，平均供肾动脉长度1．8cm，平均供肾静脉长度2．7cm。未发生任何手术并发症。术后7d供者恢复出院，3例受者术后第3－12天血肌酐恢复正常，2例受者发生肾功能延迟恢复（DGF）。结论：HLDN结合了单纯腹腔镜供肾摘取术（LDN）和开放供肾摘取术（ODN）的优点。既有切口小，痛苦小和恢复快的微创手术特点，又减少了单纯腹腔镜器械操作的难度，使外科医师更易掌握，显著缩短了手术时间和供肾热缺血时间，保证了供肾质量；同时有利于迅速处理一些紧急情况，减少并发症，提高了供者安全性和手术成功率。     

Ipsilateral orchialgia after laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Complications related to laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) have been similar to those associated with open renal donor nephrectomy (ODN). However, during clinical follow-up, we noted a group of male patients who developed acute ipsilateral orchialgia after LDN. In an effort to assess the incidence of this problem, determine the etiology, and adapt preventive measures, we reviewed our experience. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed on 381 consecutive LDNs performed between February 1995 and November 2001 to assess for postoperative orchialgia. There were 157 male patients (41.2%) in our series. Our technique involves ligation of the gonadal vessels, periureteral tissue, and ureter over the iliac artery using either surgical clips or a linear laparoscopic GIA stapler. RESULTS: Left-sided nephrectomy was performed in 145 (92.3%) male patients, of whom 14 (9.6%) complained of ipsilateral orchialgia. Statistical analysis (t-test) of the orchialgia and non-orchialgia groups with respect to operative time, estimated blood loss, warm ischemia time, and ureteral length revealed no statistical differences (P>0.1). Onset of testicular pain occurred on average at postoperative day 5 (range days 1-14). The mean follow-up was 24.4 +/- 14.8 months (range 6-52 months). Ten patients were evaluated with transcrotal duplex ultrasonography. One patient with decreased flow and was managed conservatively, while one patient without detectable testicular flow underwent surgical exploration. One patient underwent spermatocelectomy and had improvement but not resolution of pain. The remaining patients were treated conservatively with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medication and empiric antibiotics. Seven patients (50%) had complete spontaneous resolution of orchialgia on average 6.3+/-7.2 months after LDN. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy has proven to be an effective and safe surgical procedure. However, further evaluation has demonstrated a complication not previously reported, namely ipsilateral orchialgia. The etiology remains unclear but may be injury to the sensory nerves of the testicle during dissection of the periureteral tissue or transection of the spermatic cord. Further anatomic and physiological studies are needed to elucidate the pathophysiology of this problem.     

Terminal hand-assist for laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) has become widely popular in developed countries but not so in developing countries. One explanation for this maybe the difficulty in getting access devices due to the prohibitive cost. We report our method of terminal hand-assisted LDN in which successful donor nephrectomy is feasible without expensive access devices. METHOD: The patient is placed in the corresponding classic renal surgery position. Three ports are placed for left-sided and four for right-sided LDN. After complete mobilization of the kidney laparoscopically, the assistant's right hand is introduced for left-sided LDN through a 7-cm left lower quadrant transverse muscle-splitting incision. For right-sided LDN, the surgeon's right hand is inserted through a corresponding ipsilateral incision (for right-handed surgeons). A simple method to prevent the leakage of pneumoperitoneum is described. The hand inside the abdomen aids in the final steps and completes the extraction of the kidney swiftly. Manual mopping, lavage, and hemostasis are also possible. RESULTS: Five cases of LDN at our centre were done in this fashion, four on the left side and one on the right. The mean kidney retrieval time after clamping the renal artery was 3:18 +/- 0:46 minutes (range 2:30 to 4:30). Postoperative stay was 4 to 5 days. Recipient serum creatinine normalized within 3 to 4 days. CONCLUSIONS: Short duration terminal hand-assist for LDN without any special access device is possible without the fear of excessive gas leakage. It is helpful to reduce prolonged warm ischemia and to relieve the surgeon's apprehension, at least in the initial learning phase of LDN.     

Chylous ascites after laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

Laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy has decreased the disincentives to live renal donation with a risk of complications similar to that of open donor nephrectomy. We report a patient who developed chylous ascites after an otherwise-uneventful laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. On MEDLINE search, we could find only two other cases with similar complications. This condition has the potential to cause significant morbidity in the donor, which may reduce the advantages of the minimally invasive approach. We suggest that meticulous dissection of the renal hilum and clipping of lymphatic tissue around the renal vessels could prevent this untoward complication.