Living kidney donation: a comparison of laparoscopic and conventional open operations

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy has the potential to lessen the burden placed on live kidney donors. This study describes the first British comparison of donor morbidity and recovery following conventional open donor nephrectomy (ODN) and laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN). An initial series of LDN...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Postgraduate medical journal 2002-03, Vol.78 (917), p.153-157
Hauptverfasser: Waller, J R, Hiley, A L, Mullin, E J, Veitch, P S, Nicholson, M L
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 157
container_issue 917
container_start_page 153
container_title Postgraduate medical journal
container_volume 78
creator Waller, J R
Hiley, A L
Mullin, E J
Veitch, P S
Nicholson, M L
description Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy has the potential to lessen the burden placed on live kidney donors. This study describes the first British comparison of donor morbidity and recovery following conventional open donor nephrectomy (ODN) and laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN). An initial series of LDN (n=20) was compared to a historical control group of ODN (n=34). Laparoscopic operations were performed via a transperitoneal approach, the kidney being removed through a 6–12 cm Pfannensteil incision. Open operations were performed using a retroperitoneal flank approach with resection of the 12th rib. Postoperatively, donors were managed with a patient controlled analgesia system. LDN was associated with shorter mean (SD) inpatient stay (6 (2) v 4 (1) days; p=0.0001) and lower parenteral narcotic requirements (morphine 179 (108) v 67 (54) mg; p=0.0001). Laparoscopic donors started driving their cars sooner (2 (1.5) v 6 (4) weeks; p=0.0001) and returned to work more quickly (5 (3) v 12 (6) weeks; p=0.0001) than open nephrectomy donors. There were no differences in recipient serum creatinine levels at three months post-transplant but two recipients of transplant kidneys retrieved laparoscopically (10%) developed ureteric obstruction, whereas this complication did not occur after ODN (p=0.13). LDN is associated with less postoperative pain and a substantial improvement in donor recovery times. It is not yet clear whether or not the outcome of the recipient kidney transplants are the same after ODN and LDN and much more experience is required before the place of this new technique can be defined.
doi_str_mv 10.1136/pmj.78.917.153
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_1742295</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A84193565</galeid><sourcerecordid>A84193565</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b591t-ad1e8a4c21688bad0198527a2761e72b29a3e1e69797b90646fc4e81a100f3ca3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkt-L1DAQx4so3nr66qMUREGwa6ZJm_QehGP9Cas-nOdrmKbpmr02qc3u4v33Tt3lVuVAAgnJfOabbzKTJI-BzQF4-Wro13Op5hXIORT8TjIDUVYZk0V5N5kxxvOsEJKfJA9iXDMGXAq4n5wAKEWcnCWXS7dzfpVeucbb67QJHjcu-LMUUxP6AUcXg09Dm3ZImxBNGJxJ0TcU9jvrJxi7NAzWT9P4Ozs-TO612EX76LCeJpfv3n5dfMiWX95_XJwvs7qoYJNhA1ahMDmUStXYMKhUkUvMZQlW5nVeIbdgyWgl64qVomyNsAoQGGu5QX6avN7rDtu6t40hPyN2ehhdj-O1Duj03xHvvutV2GmQIs-rggSeHwTG8GNr40b3Lhrbdeht2EYtoWAVF4rAp_-A67Ad6emRtBRIqWQliHq5p1bYWe18G-hWs7KePqYL3raOjs-VgIoX5XR7dgtOo7G9M7fx8z1vqBJxtO3NS4HpqR00tYOWSlM7aGoHSnjy5_8c8UP9CXh2ADAa7NoRvXHxyPGCU03Y0amLG_vzJo7jlS4ll4X-_G2hLxblxSd4I_Sk-2LP12ToPyZ_ARzh2k8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1781778794</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Living kidney donation: a comparison of laparoscopic and conventional open operations</title><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Waller, J R ; Hiley, A L ; Mullin, E J ; Veitch, P S ; Nicholson, M L</creator><creatorcontrib>Waller, J R ; Hiley, A L ; Mullin, E J ; Veitch, P S ; Nicholson, M L</creatorcontrib><description>Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy has the potential to lessen the burden placed on live kidney donors. This study describes the first British comparison of donor morbidity and recovery following conventional open donor nephrectomy (ODN) and laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN). An initial series of LDN (n=20) was compared to a historical control group of ODN (n=34). Laparoscopic operations were performed via a transperitoneal approach, the kidney being removed through a 6–12 cm Pfannensteil incision. Open operations were performed using a retroperitoneal flank approach with resection of the 12th rib. Postoperatively, donors were managed with a patient controlled analgesia system. LDN was associated with shorter mean (SD) inpatient stay (6 (2) v 4 (1) days; p=0.0001) and lower parenteral narcotic requirements (morphine 179 (108) v 67 (54) mg; p=0.0001). Laparoscopic donors started driving their cars sooner (2 (1.5) v 6 (4) weeks; p=0.0001) and returned to work more quickly (5 (3) v 12 (6) weeks; p=0.0001) than open nephrectomy donors. There were no differences in recipient serum creatinine levels at three months post-transplant but two recipients of transplant kidneys retrieved laparoscopically (10%) developed ureteric obstruction, whereas this complication did not occur after ODN (p=0.13). LDN is associated with less postoperative pain and a substantial improvement in donor recovery times. It is not yet clear whether or not the outcome of the recipient kidney transplants are the same after ODN and LDN and much more experience is required before the place of this new technique can be defined.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0032-5473</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1469-0756</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1136/pmj.78.917.153</identifier><identifier>PMID: 11884697</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: The Fellowship of Postgraduate Medicine</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Biological and medical sciences ; Coronary vessels ; Donation of organs, tissues, etc ; Evaluation ; Female ; Humans ; Innovations ; Kidney Transplantation ; Kidney transplants ; Kidneys ; laparoscopic donor nephrectomy ; Laparoscopic surgery ; Laparoscopy ; Laparoscopy - methods ; LDN ; Length of Stay ; live donor nephrectomy ; Living Donors ; Male ; Medical imaging ; Medical sciences ; Middle Aged ; Nephrectomy - adverse effects ; Nephrectomy - methods ; Nephrectomy - rehabilitation ; ODN ; open donor nephrectomy ; Original ; Pain ; patient controlled analgesia system ; PCAS ; Prospective Studies ; Retrospective Studies ; Surgery ; Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases ; Surgery of the urinary system ; Tissue and Organ Harvesting - methods ; Tissue and Organ Harvesting - rehabilitation ; Veins &amp; arteries</subject><ispartof>Postgraduate medical journal, 2002-03, Vol.78 (917), p.153-157</ispartof><rights>Copyright 2002 The Fellowship of Postgraduate Medicine</rights><rights>2002 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2002 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.</rights><rights>Copyright: 2002 Copyright 2002 The Fellowship of Postgraduate Medicine</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b591t-ad1e8a4c21688bad0198527a2761e72b29a3e1e69797b90646fc4e81a100f3ca3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-b591t-ad1e8a4c21688bad0198527a2761e72b29a3e1e69797b90646fc4e81a100f3ca3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1742295/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1742295/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,881,27903,27904,53769,53771</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=13531980$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11884697$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Waller, J R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hiley, A L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mullin, E J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Veitch, P S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nicholson, M L</creatorcontrib><title>Living kidney donation: a comparison of laparoscopic and conventional open operations</title><title>Postgraduate medical journal</title><addtitle>Postgrad Med J</addtitle><description>Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy has the potential to lessen the burden placed on live kidney donors. This study describes the first British comparison of donor morbidity and recovery following conventional open donor nephrectomy (ODN) and laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN). An initial series of LDN (n=20) was compared to a historical control group of ODN (n=34). Laparoscopic operations were performed via a transperitoneal approach, the kidney being removed through a 6–12 cm Pfannensteil incision. Open operations were performed using a retroperitoneal flank approach with resection of the 12th rib. Postoperatively, donors were managed with a patient controlled analgesia system. LDN was associated with shorter mean (SD) inpatient stay (6 (2) v 4 (1) days; p=0.0001) and lower parenteral narcotic requirements (morphine 179 (108) v 67 (54) mg; p=0.0001). Laparoscopic donors started driving their cars sooner (2 (1.5) v 6 (4) weeks; p=0.0001) and returned to work more quickly (5 (3) v 12 (6) weeks; p=0.0001) than open nephrectomy donors. There were no differences in recipient serum creatinine levels at three months post-transplant but two recipients of transplant kidneys retrieved laparoscopically (10%) developed ureteric obstruction, whereas this complication did not occur after ODN (p=0.13). LDN is associated with less postoperative pain and a substantial improvement in donor recovery times. It is not yet clear whether or not the outcome of the recipient kidney transplants are the same after ODN and LDN and much more experience is required before the place of this new technique can be defined.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Coronary vessels</subject><subject>Donation of organs, tissues, etc</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Innovations</subject><subject>Kidney Transplantation</subject><subject>Kidney transplants</subject><subject>Kidneys</subject><subject>laparoscopic donor nephrectomy</subject><subject>Laparoscopic surgery</subject><subject>Laparoscopy</subject><subject>Laparoscopy - methods</subject><subject>LDN</subject><subject>Length of Stay</subject><subject>live donor nephrectomy</subject><subject>Living Donors</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical imaging</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Nephrectomy - adverse effects</subject><subject>Nephrectomy - methods</subject><subject>Nephrectomy - rehabilitation</subject><subject>ODN</subject><subject>open donor nephrectomy</subject><subject>Original</subject><subject>Pain</subject><subject>patient controlled analgesia system</subject><subject>PCAS</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases</subject><subject>Surgery of the urinary system</subject><subject>Tissue and Organ Harvesting - methods</subject><subject>Tissue and Organ Harvesting - rehabilitation</subject><subject>Veins &amp; arteries</subject><issn>0032-5473</issn><issn>1469-0756</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2002</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkt-L1DAQx4so3nr66qMUREGwa6ZJm_QehGP9Cas-nOdrmKbpmr02qc3u4v33Tt3lVuVAAgnJfOabbzKTJI-BzQF4-Wro13Op5hXIORT8TjIDUVYZk0V5N5kxxvOsEJKfJA9iXDMGXAq4n5wAKEWcnCWXS7dzfpVeucbb67QJHjcu-LMUUxP6AUcXg09Dm3ZImxBNGJxJ0TcU9jvrJxi7NAzWT9P4Ozs-TO612EX76LCeJpfv3n5dfMiWX95_XJwvs7qoYJNhA1ahMDmUStXYMKhUkUvMZQlW5nVeIbdgyWgl64qVomyNsAoQGGu5QX6avN7rDtu6t40hPyN2ehhdj-O1Duj03xHvvutV2GmQIs-rggSeHwTG8GNr40b3Lhrbdeht2EYtoWAVF4rAp_-A67Ad6emRtBRIqWQliHq5p1bYWe18G-hWs7KePqYL3raOjs-VgIoX5XR7dgtOo7G9M7fx8z1vqBJxtO3NS4HpqR00tYOWSlM7aGoHSnjy5_8c8UP9CXh2ADAa7NoRvXHxyPGCU03Y0amLG_vzJo7jlS4ll4X-_G2hLxblxSd4I_Sk-2LP12ToPyZ_ARzh2k8</recordid><startdate>20020301</startdate><enddate>20020301</enddate><creator>Waller, J R</creator><creator>Hiley, A L</creator><creator>Mullin, E J</creator><creator>Veitch, P S</creator><creator>Nicholson, M L</creator><general>The Fellowship of Postgraduate Medicine</general><general>BMJ</general><general>BMJ Publishing Group Ltd</general><general>Oxford University Press</general><general>BMJ Group</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BTHHO</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20020301</creationdate><title>Living kidney donation: a comparison of laparoscopic and conventional open operations</title><author>Waller, J R ; Hiley, A L ; Mullin, E J ; Veitch, P S ; Nicholson, M L</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b591t-ad1e8a4c21688bad0198527a2761e72b29a3e1e69797b90646fc4e81a100f3ca3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2002</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Coronary vessels</topic><topic>Donation of organs, tissues, etc</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Innovations</topic><topic>Kidney Transplantation</topic><topic>Kidney transplants</topic><topic>Kidneys</topic><topic>laparoscopic donor nephrectomy</topic><topic>Laparoscopic surgery</topic><topic>Laparoscopy</topic><topic>Laparoscopy - methods</topic><topic>LDN</topic><topic>Length of Stay</topic><topic>live donor nephrectomy</topic><topic>Living Donors</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical imaging</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Nephrectomy - adverse effects</topic><topic>Nephrectomy - methods</topic><topic>Nephrectomy - rehabilitation</topic><topic>ODN</topic><topic>open donor nephrectomy</topic><topic>Original</topic><topic>Pain</topic><topic>patient controlled analgesia system</topic><topic>PCAS</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases</topic><topic>Surgery of the urinary system</topic><topic>Tissue and Organ Harvesting - methods</topic><topic>Tissue and Organ Harvesting - rehabilitation</topic><topic>Veins &amp; arteries</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Waller, J R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hiley, A L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mullin, E J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Veitch, P S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nicholson, M L</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>BMJ Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Postgraduate medical journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Waller, J R</au><au>Hiley, A L</au><au>Mullin, E J</au><au>Veitch, P S</au><au>Nicholson, M L</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Living kidney donation: a comparison of laparoscopic and conventional open operations</atitle><jtitle>Postgraduate medical journal</jtitle><addtitle>Postgrad Med J</addtitle><date>2002-03-01</date><risdate>2002</risdate><volume>78</volume><issue>917</issue><spage>153</spage><epage>157</epage><pages>153-157</pages><issn>0032-5473</issn><eissn>1469-0756</eissn><abstract>Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy has the potential to lessen the burden placed on live kidney donors. This study describes the first British comparison of donor morbidity and recovery following conventional open donor nephrectomy (ODN) and laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN). An initial series of LDN (n=20) was compared to a historical control group of ODN (n=34). Laparoscopic operations were performed via a transperitoneal approach, the kidney being removed through a 6–12 cm Pfannensteil incision. Open operations were performed using a retroperitoneal flank approach with resection of the 12th rib. Postoperatively, donors were managed with a patient controlled analgesia system. LDN was associated with shorter mean (SD) inpatient stay (6 (2) v 4 (1) days; p=0.0001) and lower parenteral narcotic requirements (morphine 179 (108) v 67 (54) mg; p=0.0001). Laparoscopic donors started driving their cars sooner (2 (1.5) v 6 (4) weeks; p=0.0001) and returned to work more quickly (5 (3) v 12 (6) weeks; p=0.0001) than open nephrectomy donors. There were no differences in recipient serum creatinine levels at three months post-transplant but two recipients of transplant kidneys retrieved laparoscopically (10%) developed ureteric obstruction, whereas this complication did not occur after ODN (p=0.13). LDN is associated with less postoperative pain and a substantial improvement in donor recovery times. It is not yet clear whether or not the outcome of the recipient kidney transplants are the same after ODN and LDN and much more experience is required before the place of this new technique can be defined.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>The Fellowship of Postgraduate Medicine</pub><pmid>11884697</pmid><doi>10.1136/pmj.78.917.153</doi><tpages>5</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0032-5473
ispartof Postgraduate medical journal, 2002-03, Vol.78 (917), p.153-157
issn 0032-5473
1469-0756
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_1742295
source Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current); MEDLINE; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Adult
Aged
Biological and medical sciences
Coronary vessels
Donation of organs, tissues, etc
Evaluation
Female
Humans
Innovations
Kidney Transplantation
Kidney transplants
Kidneys
laparoscopic donor nephrectomy
Laparoscopic surgery
Laparoscopy
Laparoscopy - methods
LDN
Length of Stay
live donor nephrectomy
Living Donors
Male
Medical imaging
Medical sciences
Middle Aged
Nephrectomy - adverse effects
Nephrectomy - methods
Nephrectomy - rehabilitation
ODN
open donor nephrectomy
Original
Pain
patient controlled analgesia system
PCAS
Prospective Studies
Retrospective Studies
Surgery
Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases
Surgery of the urinary system
Tissue and Organ Harvesting - methods
Tissue and Organ Harvesting - rehabilitation
Veins & arteries
title Living kidney donation: a comparison of laparoscopic and conventional open operations
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-27T11%3A02%3A38IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Living%20kidney%20donation:%20a%20comparison%20of%20laparoscopic%20and%20conventional%20open%20operations&rft.jtitle=Postgraduate%20medical%20journal&rft.au=Waller,%20J%20R&rft.date=2002-03-01&rft.volume=78&rft.issue=917&rft.spage=153&rft.epage=157&rft.pages=153-157&rft.issn=0032-5473&rft.eissn=1469-0756&rft_id=info:doi/10.1136/pmj.78.917.153&rft_dat=%3Cgale_pubme%3EA84193565%3C/gale_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1781778794&rft_id=info:pmid/11884697&rft_galeid=A84193565&rfr_iscdi=true