Further improvements in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: decreased pain and accelerated recovery
Fear of postoperative pain is a disincentive to living donor kidney transplantation. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) was developed in part to dispel this disincentive. The dramatic increase in the number of laparoscopic donor nephrectomies performed at our institution has been in part due to th...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Clinical transplantation 2001-01, Vol.15 (s6), p.59-61 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Fear of postoperative pain is a disincentive to living donor kidney transplantation. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) was developed in part to dispel this disincentive. The dramatic increase in the number of laparoscopic donor nephrectomies performed at our institution has been in part due to the reduction in postoperative pain as compared to traditional, open donor nephrectomy. We sought to further diminish the pain associated with this surgical technique. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of three different postoperative pain management regimens after LDN. All living kidney donors performed laparoscopically (n=43) between September 1998 and April 2000 were included for analysis. Primary endpoints included postoperative narcotic requirements and length of stay. Narcotic usage was converted to morphine equivalents (ME) for comparison purposes. Patients received one of three pain control regimens (group I: oral and intravenous narcotics; group II: oral and intravenous narcotics and the On‐Q™ pump delivering a continuous infusion of subfascial bupivicaine 0.5%; and group III: oral and intravenous narcotics and subfascial bupivicaine 0.5% injection). Postoperative intravenous and oral narcotic use as measured in morphine equivalents was significantly less in group III versus groups I and II (group III: 28.7 ME versus group I: 40.2 ME, group II: 44.8 ME; P |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0902-0063 1399-0012 |
DOI: | 10.1034/j.1399-0012.2001.00011.x |