Search

Objective: Determining possible differences in living donor nephrectomy procedures: laparoscopy against mini-incision concerning discomfort to the donor and the maintenance of good graft function., Design: Blind randomized study., Method: In two university medical centres, one hundred living kidney donors were randomly assigned to either total laparoscopic donor nephrectomy or mini-incision muscle-splitting open donor nephrectomy. Primary outcome was physical fatigue measured with the 'Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory' (MFI-20) during one-year follow-up. Secondary outcomes were physical function measured with the 'Short form-36' questionnaire, postoperative hospital stay, amount of pain, operating times and graft and patient survival., Results: Donors who underwent laparoscopy experienced less fatigue (difference: -1.3; 95% CI: -2.4 - (-0.1)) and physical function was better (difference: 6.2; 95% CI: 2.0-10.3) during one-year follow-up. Those donors who underwent laparoscopy required less morphine (16 mg versus 25 mg; p = 0.005) and the duration of hospital stay was shorter (3 versus 4 days; p = 0.003). The laparoscopic procedure resulted in a longer operation time (221 versus 164 min; p < 0.001) a longer first warm ischaemia time (6 versus 3 min; p < 0.001) and less blood loss (100 versus 240 ml; p < 0.001). Recipient renal function and one-year graft survival rates did not differ. The number of preoperative and postoperative complications did not differ significantly between both surgery techniques. Conversions did not occur., Conclusion: Donor nephrectomy through laparoscopy led to less fatigue and a better quality of life compared with the open procedure. The safety factors for donors and recipients were comparable for both techniques. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is therefore the better surgical choice for kidney donor programmes with living donors.

Objective: To determine whether an investigation of microsatellite instability (MSI) in patients with colorectal carcinoma that have been selected by the pathologist could increase the number of detected families with hereditary non-polyposis colorectal carcinoma (HNPCC)., Design: Prospective inventory., Method: Pathologists selected patients with a newly diagnosed colorectal carcinoma for MSI analysis of their tumour tissue if they met one of the following four criteria: (a) colorectal carcinoma diagnosed below 50 years of age; (b) a second colorectal carcinoma; (c) a combination of colorectal carcinoma and another HNPCC-related cancer; (d) colorectal adenoma with high-grade dysplasia diagnosed below 40 years of age. Patients with a positive MSI-test were referred to a clinical geneticist. The new strategy was introduced and explored in 5 hospitals for a period of to months., Results: The new strategy was adopted and implemented successfully by pathologists and surgeons and accepted with satisfaction by the patients. Of the 55 patients included, 10 had a positive MSI-test. In 8/10 patients, DNA-mutation analysis was started by the clinical geneticist and 3 germline mutations in the MSH2-gene were detected. In 2 of 3 families with a pathogenic mutation, the family history alone did not fulfil the clinical criteria for HNPCC., Conclusion: Selection by the pathologist for MSI investigation was feasible in daily practice and identified more HNPCC patients than selection based on family history alone.