ライフサイエンスコーパス: donor nephrectomy

1 nephrectomy, radical nephroureterectomy and donor nephrectomy.

2 the use of ketorolac for patients undergoing donor nephrectomy.

3 protamine administration during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.

4 s who are candidates for laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy.

5 ractive alternative to standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.

6 the safety of using ketorolac at the time of donor nephrectomy.

7 renal arteries and would have undergone left donor nephrectomy.

8 centers performing right-sided laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.

9 phrectomy is feasible and equivalent to open donor nephrectomy.

10 ansion is important during laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy.

11 re of choice as compared to traditional open donor nephrectomy.

12 bjective improvements to laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy.

13 in 10 in situ native adult kidneys prior to donor nephrectomy.

14 to historic control subjects undergoing open donor nephrectomy.

15 r ureteral complications solely after living donor nephrectomy.

16 ogression through donor assessment to actual donor nephrectomy.

17 to the laparoscopic approach for left-sided donor nephrectomy.

18 ensation to those persons willing to undergo donor nephrectomy.

19 with traditional multiple-port laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.

20 tion (LKT) after retroperitoneoscopic living-donor nephrectomy.

21 as the main reason for still performing open donor nephrectomy.

22 opment of novel surgical techniques for live-donor nephrectomy.

23 y morphine requirements in laparoscopic live-donor nephrectomy.

24 tailored informed consent procedure for live donor nephrectomy.

25 to track the unknown consequences of a live-donor nephrectomy.

26 vices to secure the vein during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.

27 reduced LOS and decreased narcotic use after donor nephrectomy.

28 albumin did not change in either group after donor nephrectomy.

29 re important features of a successful living-donor nephrectomy.

30 iteria that have traditionally governed open donor nephrectomy.

31 ipient morbidity following laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy.

32 equently encountered with laparoscopic right donor nephrectomy.

33 1/1/1990 and 12/31/2014, we did 2002 living donor nephrectomies.

34 tients were assessed in a series of 150 live-donor nephrectomies.

35 tiinstitutional review of laparoscopic right donor nephrectomies.

36 omes compared with all previous laparoscopic donor nephrectomies.

37 ing cohort of 100 multiple-port laparoscopic donor nephrectomies.

38 tal center experience with 1300 laparoscopic donor nephrectomies.

39 e implemented RetroNeph at once for all live donor nephrectomies.

40 Of the first 52 donor nephrectomies (48 left, 4 right) consecutively sta

41 After donor nephrectomy, all kidneys were machine perfused for

42 % confidence interval [CI], 1.08-1.74) after donor nephrectomy among related donors.

43 with the current advantages of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy and may continue to decrease disincent

44 y pain, sports hernia pain, postnephrectomy, donor nephrectomy and phantom groin pain.

45 ladder cancer), kidney surgery (nephrectomy, donor nephrectomy and pyeloplasty), and adrenal surgery.

46 , surgery date, coordination of simultaneous donor nephrectomies, and other issues are coordinated as

47 ween the cohort that did and did not undergo donor nephrectomy, and performed simple linear logistic

48 splenectomy for splenomegaly, living-related donor nephrectomy, and procedures considered too complex

49 Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomies are being performed at our instituti

50 Over 5,000 living kidney donor nephrectomies are performed annually in the US.

51 used techniques for minimally invasive live donor nephrectomy are safe and associated with low compl

52 plications of renal transplants after living donor nephrectomy are uncommon.

53 (LDN) has become the gold standard for live-donor nephrectomy, as it results in a short convalescenc

54 A 25-year-old man underwent laparoscopic donor nephrectomy at a large medical center familiar wit

55 -assisted laparoscopic or open surgical live donor nephrectomy at a single referral center.

56 tion after hand-assisted laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy at our institution from January 2008 t

57 re device was used in 124 consecutive living-donor nephrectomies beginning in 1999.

58 uestion, we surveyed 220 women who underwent donor nephrectomy between 1985 and 1992.

59 nsecutive patients who underwent open living donor nephrectomy between January 1998 and July 2000 at

60 nd function rates are equal to those of open donor nephrectomy, but longer follow-up is necessary to

61 Living donor nephrectomy can be done with little major morbidit

62 Single-port donor nephrectomy can be integrated as a standardized ap

63 Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy can be performed as a 23-hour stay pro

64 Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy can be performed with morbidity and mo

65 ared with historical left-sided laparoscopic donor nephrectomy cohorts.

66 from a Medicare perspective for laparoscopic donor nephrectomy compared with living and cadaveric tra

67 Three hundred eighty-three living donor nephrectomies conducted at one of the United Kingd

68 of minimally invasive surgical approaches to donor nephrectomy (DN) has been driven by the potential

69 Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy does not adversely effect recipient ou

70 Donors undergoing traditional open donor nephrectomy during January 1997 to May 1998 served

71 Post-donor nephrectomy follow-up consisted of standard questi

72 Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy for renal transplantation is being per

73 Between 2000 and December 2013, 106 live donor nephrectomies from anonymous living-donors were pe

74 splenectomy for splenomegaly, living-related donor nephrectomy, gastric banding for morbid obesity, p

75 study was to determine whether laparoscopic donor nephrectomy had any deleterious effect on the reci

76 y and vein during hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN).

77 Hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy (HARP) is an alternative approach, com

78 veness of hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy (HARP).

79 Minimally invasive donor nephrectomy has become a favored procedure for the

80 Minimally invasive live donor nephrectomy has become a fully implemented and acc

81 Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy has been introduced, and appears to be

82 Laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy has gained acceptance within the trans

83 Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy has gained widespread acceptance and i

84 Since 1995, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy has had a significant impact on the fi

85 idity, and short-term graft function to open donor nephrectomy has not been performed previously.

86 Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy has remained a safe, less invasive, an

87 Although laparoscopic living donor nephrectomies have a considerably reduced risk of

88 Subsequently, all living donor nephrectomies have been done using the hand-assist

89 Laparoscopic surgery reduces pain after donor nephrectomy; however, most patients still require

90 heparin anticoagulation during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy if heparin is given.

91 sitively, and most would be motivated toward donor nephrectomy if offered a payment of $50000.

92 ecall of the Hem-o-lok clip for laparoscopic donor nephrectomies in 2006, two live kidney donors in t

93 We changed our approach to single-port donor nephrectomy in 2009 and have compared outcomes wit

94 wn that the system allows the performance of donor nephrectomy in a safe and accurate fashion.

95 based analgesia for patients undergoing open donor nephrectomy in August 1999.

96 y donation in general and minimally invasive donor nephrectomy in particular are more commonly applie

97 few, recent studies suggest that GFR loss at donor nephrectomy increases the risk of eventual end-sta

98 The laparoscopic technique for living donor nephrectomy is a technically difficult procedure t

99 Informed consent in live donor nephrectomy is a topic of great interest.

100 Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is associated with a briefer, less int

101 Right-sided donor nephrectomy is associated with a small increased r

102 However, donor nephrectomy is associated with at least some morbi

103 Adaptive hyperfiltration after donor nephrectomy is attributable to hyperperfusion and

104 Initial reports suggest that laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is feasible and equivalent to open don

105 LKT after living-donor nephrectomy is feasible, but it has steep learning

106 Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is gaining increasing popularity becau

107 Based on these results, we conclude that donor nephrectomy is not detrimental to the prenatal cou

108 Minimally invasive donor nephrectomy is safe and effective for procuring no

109 We conclude that laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy is technically feasible.

110 lar injury, many studies have suggested that donor nephrectomy itself does not cause long-term loss o

111 Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (laparoNx) has the potential to increa

112 Compared with mini-incision open donor nephrectomy, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN)

113 vely review the results of laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (LapNx) and to compare them with those

114 on to six kidneys removed after laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) and several hours of CO2 pneumop

115 Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) has become the gold standard for

116 Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) has become the standard of care

117 The applicability of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) has not been assessed in the obe

118 Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (LDN) is a less invasive alternative t

119 Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) is a new technique for removal o

120 Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (LDN) is a recently developed procedur

121 Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) is becoming the method of choice

122 ncision open donor nephrectomy, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) is considered cost-effective.

123 There is controversy whether laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) is the procedure of choice for l

124 Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) is well established; however, th

125 of life after randomization to laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) or short-incision open donor nep

126 Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) results in less postoperative su

127 atomic and functional outcomes of right live-donor nephrectomy (LDN) using either a hand-assisted app

128 aparoscopic kidney procurement (laparoscopic donor nephrectomy [LDN]) in adults, doubts have persiste

129 Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (LLDN) is increasingly used by transpl

130 ents and three cases where laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (LLDN) was utilized to obtain the kidn

131 With laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (LLDN), there is reluctance to procure

132 is a rare complication of laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (LLDN).

133 The five donor nephrectomies made nine kidney transplantations po

134 ns in recipients of kidneys procured by open donor nephrectomy (ODN) versus LDN.

135 and quicker recovery than the standard open donor nephrectomy (ODN).

136 nor nephrectomy (LDN) or short-incision open donor nephrectomy (ODN).

137 on after LDN, and transplantation after open donor nephrectomy (ODN).

138 DN when compared with open procurement (open donor nephrectomy [ODN]) for children.

139 rocedures compared were the traditional open donor nephrectomy [ODN], the standard laparoscopic [LAP]

140 Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy offers advantages to the donor in term

141 examines the short-term (3 months) effect of donor nephrectomy on GFR and the occurrence of stage 3 c

142 were higher than open and left laparoscopic donor nephrectomy on postoperative day 1, but at all rem

143 8 patients underwent successful laparoscopic donor nephrectomy on the basis of the MR findings.

144 iques; 59 centers (61%) performed endoscopic donor nephrectomy only.

145 ociated perioperative morbidity, we reviewed donor nephrectomies performed at our institution from Ja

146 rospectively analyzed all right laparoscopic donor nephrectomies performed at their center from Novem

147 m 52 consecutive living-related laparoscopic donor nephrectomies performed at University of Californi

148 Left donor nephrectomies performed during the same period ser

149 describes the authors' large series of right donor nephrectomies performed laparoscopically without t

150 ases of robotic-assisted laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy performed using the da Vinci Surgical

151 erience demonstrates that laparoscopic right donor nephrectomy performed without hand-assist devices

152 stions have been studied in the laparoscopic donor nephrectomy population.

153 eficial alternative to the conventional open donor nephrectomy procedure and cadaveric transplantatio

154 y 1998 to December 1998 and traditional open donor nephrectomy procedures from May 1996 to May 1998 s

155 roscopic as compared with open surgical live donor nephrectomy provides briefer, less intense, and mo

156 ymer ligating (NPL) clip during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy provides increased graft vessel length

157 hese results confirm that right laparoscopic donor nephrectomy provides similar patient benefits, inc

158 toperative pain for patients undergoing open donor nephrectomy reduced morbidity and was not associat

159 Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy remains an evolving technique that has

160 Retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy (RetroNeph) offers an intrinsic advant

161 Compared with multiple-port donor nephrectomy, single-port patients had similar oper

162 o developed a complication from laparoscopic donor nephrectomy that required open corrective surgery.

163 As in open donor nephrectomy, the left kidney has remained the pref

164 As in open live donor nephrectomy, the left kidney is preferred for LLDN

165 In open live donor nephrectomy, the right kidney is selected if the l

166 le means of arterial control in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy; thus, a practice with documented fata

167 oup of patients undergoing laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy to a group of patients undergoing open

168 ctomy to a group of patients undergoing open donor nephrectomy to assess the efficacy, morbidity, and

169 previously estimated the mortality of living donor nephrectomy to be 0.03%.

170 mong 480 renal transplantations after living donor nephrectomy, ureteral complications occurred in 18

171 was to compare laparoscopic versus open live donor nephrectomy using meta-analytical techniques.

172 Laparoscopic live-donor nephrectomy was associated with no mortality and n

173 Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy was attempted in 70 patients and compl

174 Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy was developed to remove disincentives

175 Right laparoscopic donor nephrectomy was performed for varying reasons, inc

176 All living-donor nephrectomies were performed by retroperitoneoscop

177 stain closure of renal artery stumps in live donor nephrectomies were received, this study was design

178 Records from 381 consecutive laparoscopic donor nephrectomies were reviewed with evaluation of bot

179 The indications for right-sided donor nephrectomy were a difference in split renal funct

180 ies of patients undergoing laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy were compared to historic control subj

181 en 1997 and 2006 of open versus laparoscopic donor nephrectomy were included.

182 complications after minimally invasive live donor nephrectomy were included.

183 We compared outcomes from 135 single-port donor nephrectomies with an immediately preceding cohort

184 h morbidity and mortality comparable to open donor nephrectomy, with substantial improvements in pati

185 35 patients completed successful single-port donor nephrectomy without major complication or open con