Comparison of laparoscopic and mini incision open donor nephrectomy: single blind, randomised controlled clinical trial

Abstract Objectives To determine the best approach for live donor nephrectomy to minimise discomfort to the donor and to provide good graft function. Design Single blind, randomised controlled trial. Setting Two university medical centres, the Netherlands. Participants 100 living kidney donors. Inte...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:BMJ Vol. 333; no. 7561; pp. 221 - 224
Main Authors: Kok, Niels F M, Lind, May Y, Hansson, Birgitta M E, Pilzecker, Desiree, Mertens zur Borg, Ingrid R A M, Knipscheer, Ben C, Hazebroek, Eric J, Dooper, Ine M, Weimar, Willem, Hop, Wim C J, Adang, Eddy M M, van der Wilt, Gert Jan, Bonjer, Hendrik J, van der Vliet, Jordanus A, IJzermans, Jan N M
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: London British Medical Journal Publishing Group 29-07-2006
British Medical Association
BMJ Publishing Group LTD
BMJ Publishing Group
BMJ Publishing Group Ltd
Edition:International edition
Subjects:
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Abstract Objectives To determine the best approach for live donor nephrectomy to minimise discomfort to the donor and to provide good graft function. Design Single blind, randomised controlled trial. Setting Two university medical centres, the Netherlands. Participants 100 living kidney donors. Interventions Participants were randomly assigned to either laparoscopic donor nephrectomy or to mini incision muscle splitting open donor nephrectomy. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was physical fatigue using the multidimensional fatigue inventory 20 (MFI-20). Secondary outcomes were physical function using the SF-36, hospital stay after surgery, pain, operating times, recipient graft function, and graft survival. Results Conversions did not occur. Compared with mini incision open donor nephrectomy, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy resulted in longer skin to skin time (median 221 v 164 minutes, P < 0.001), longer warm ischaemia time (6 v 3 minutes, P < 0.001), less blood loss (100 v 240 ml, P < 0.001), and a similar number of complications (intraoperatively 12% v 6%, P = 0.49, postoperatively both 6%). After laparoscopic nephrectomy, donors required less morphine (16 v 25 mg, P = 0.005) and shorter hospital stay (3 v 4 days, P = 0.003). During one year's follow-up mean physical fatigue was less (difference - 1.3, 95% confidence interval - 2.4 to - 0.1) and physical function was better (difference 6.2, 2.0 to 10.3) after laparoscopic nephrectomy. Function of the graft and graft survival rate of the recipient at one year censored for death did not differ (100% after laparoscopic nephrectomy and 98% after open nephrectomy). Conclusions Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy results in a better quality of life compared with mini incision open donor nephrectomy but equal safety and graft function.
Bibliography:local:bmj;333/7561/221
istex:E968BCC61CECDA0491EE53D6F8044C995A82887C
ArticleID:bmj.38886.618947.7C
href:bmj-333-221.pdf
PMID:16847014
Correspondence to: J N M IJzermans
ark:/67375/NVC-TC3GXDMX-R
ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-News-2
ObjectType-Feature-3
content type line 23
Funding: This study was supported by unrestricted grants from the Society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons and the Dutch Kidney Foundation.
Competing interest: None declared.
Table with data for additional dimensions is on bmj.com
Contributors: WW, BMEH, GJvdW, EJH, IRAMMzB, HJB, JAvdV, and JNMI contributed to the design and initial planning of this study. BMEH, BCK, HJB, and JNMIJ attended all operations and controlled the carrying out of the surgical technique. NFMK, MYL, EJH, and DP collected the donors' data. WW and IMD collected the recipients' data. WCJH was the trial statistician. NFMK, EMMA, and GJvdW were responsible for collecting, analysing, interpreting, and writing up the quality of life data. IRAMMzB supervised and controlled the anaesthesiology protocol. NFMK, WW, JNMI, and EMMA coordinated the writing and drafting of the article. JNMI is guarantor.
Ethical approval: This study was approved by the medical ethics committees of the university medical centres at Rotterdam and Nijmegen.
Correspondence to: J N M IJzermans j.ijzermans@erasmusmc.nl
We thank J G van Duuren-van Pelt, data manager, and I P J Alwayn, surgeon, for their contributions to this study.
ISSN:0959-8138
0959-8146
1468-5833
1756-1833
DOI:10.1136/bmj.38886.618947.7C