Intraoperative fluid management in laparoscopic live-donor nephrectomy: Challenging the dogma

Patients undergoing laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (LLDN) commonly receive large amounts of fluid intraoperatively to counter the negative effects of pneumoperitoneum on renal function. Our aim is to demonstrate that a low-volume fluid management strategy does not adversely affect donor or reci...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Surgical endoscopy 2004-11, Vol.18 (11), p.1625-1630
Hauptverfasser: BERGMAN, S, FELDMAN, L. S, CARLI, F, ANIDJAR, M, VASSILIOU, M. C, ANDREW, C. G, STANBRIDGE, D. D, FRIED, G. M
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Patients undergoing laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (LLDN) commonly receive large amounts of fluid intraoperatively to counter the negative effects of pneumoperitoneum on renal function. Our aim is to demonstrate that a low-volume fluid management strategy does not adversely affect donor or recipient outcomes. Fifty-two patients underwent LLDN between December 2000 and January 2004. Data were collected in prospective databases, and augmented with retrospective medical record review. Donors were divided into two groups: the fluid-load group (n = 24) received > 10 ml/kg/h of intravenous crystalloids intraoperatively, while the fluid-restriction group (n = 28) received < 10 m/kg/h. Donors in the fluid-restriction group had a lower intraoperative urine output. There were no differences in postoperative creatinine levels (117.5 micromol/L vs 121.5 micromol/L, p = 0.8) or complications (4.2% vs 7.1%, p = 0.9). In the recipients, there were no differences in postoperative creatinine levels up to 12 months, incidence of delayed graft function (18% vs 10%, p = 0.7) or acute rejection (9% vs 5%, p = 1.0) between groups. Lower volume fluid management strategies in LLDN do not appear to worsen recipient outcomes nor are they detrimental to the donors.
ISSN:0930-2794
1432-2218
DOI:10.1007/s00464-004-8811-3