vtioВестник трансплантологии и искусственных органовRussian Journal of Transplantology and Artificial Organs1995-1191Academician V.I.Shumakov National Medical Research Center of Transplantology and Artificial Organs", Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation10.15825/1995-1191-2012-3-48-53vtio-190Research ArticleКлиническая трансплантологияClinical TransplantologyРЕТРОПЕРИТОНЕОСКОПИЧЕСКАЯ ДОНОРСКАЯ НЕФРЭКТОМИЯ: ОПЫТ ВЫПОЛНЕНИЯ 10 ОПЕРАЦИЙRETROPERITONEOSCOPIC DONOR NEPHRECTOMY: EXPERIENCE WITH TEN OPERATIONSПерлинД. В.PerlinD. V.АлександровИ. В.AleksandrovI. V.НиколаевА. Ю.NikolaevA. Y.ГБУЗ «Волгоградский областной уронефрологический центр», Волжский Волгоградский государственный медицинский университет, кафедра урологии, нефрологии и трансплантологии, г. ВолгоградVolgograd Regional Uronephrological Center, Voljsky Department of Urology, Volgograd State Medical University, VolgogradГБУЗ «Волгоградский областной уронефрологический центр», ВолжскийVolgograd Regional Uronephrological Center, Voljsky201228052014143ВЕСТНИК ТРАНСПЛАНТОЛОГИИ И ИСКУССТВЕННЫХ ОРГАНОВ том XIV No 3–20124853Copyright © Перлин Д.В., Александров И.В., Николаев А.Ю., 20122012Перлин Д.В., Александров И.В., Николаев А.Ю.Perlin D.V., Aleksandrov I.V., Nikolaev A.Y.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://journal.transpl.ru/vtio/article/view/190

В статье приведено подробное описание собственной модификации методики ретроперитонеоскопиче- ской донорской нефрэктомии. Представлен анализ результатов выполнения первых 10 таких операций. Четыре вмешательства выполнены слева, шесть – справа. Ни в одном случае не потребовалась конвер- сия к открытой или хэнд-ассистированной операции. Все органы были успешно трансплантированы. Не было отмечено интра- или послеоперационных хирургических осложнений у доноров и реципиентов. Ретроперитонеоскопическая донорская нефрэктомия является воспроизводимым и безопасным методом. Операция имеет три основных преимущества: отсутствие контакта с органами брюшной полости, наи- более простой доступ к почечным артериям, отсутствие системного повышения внутрибрюшинного дав- ления. 

We modified the method of retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy and evaluated results of first 10 pro- cedures. We performed four left- and six right-sided donor nephrectomy. There were no conversions to open or hand-assisted surgery. All organs have been successfully transplanted. Retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrec- tomy is safe and feasible. The method has three main advantages over conventional laparoscopic nephrectomy: the absence of contact with bowel, spleen, liver and other intra-abdominal structures, more comfortable access to the renal artery, absence of intraperitoneal pressure elevation. 

ретроперитонеоскопиядонорская нефрэктомиялапароскопияretroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomylaparoscopyReferencesAlcaraz A., Rosales A. et al. Early experience of a li- ving donor kidney transplant program // Eur. Urol. 2006. Vol. 50. P. 542–548.Alcaraz A., Rosales A. et al. Early experience of a li- ving donor kidney transplant program // Eur. Urol. 2006. Vol. 50. P. 542–548.Bachmann A., Wolff T., Ruszata R. et al. Retroperitoneo- scopic donor nephrectomy: a retrospective, non-rando- mized comparison of early complications, donor and re- cipient outcome with the standard open approach // Eur. Urol. 2005. Vol. 48. P. 90–96.Bachmann A., Wolff T., Ruszata R. et al. Retroperitoneo- scopic donor nephrectomy: a retrospective, non-rando- mized comparison of early complications, donor and re- cipient outcome with the standard open approach // Eur. Urol. 2005. Vol. 48. P. 90–96.Breda A., Bui M.H. et al. Incidence of ureteral strictures after laparoscopic donor nephrectomy // J. Urol. 2006. Vol. 176. P. 1065–1068.Breda A., Bui M.H. et al. Incidence of ureteral strictures after laparoscopic donor nephrectomy // J. Urol. 2006. Vol. 176. P. 1065–1068.El-Galley R., Hood N., Young C.J. et al. Donor nephrec- tomy: a comparison of techniques and results of open,El-Galley R., Hood N., Young C.J. et al. Donor nephrec- tomy: a comparison of techniques and results of open,hand-assisted and full laparoscopic nephrectomy //hand-assisted and full laparoscopic nephrectomy //J. Urol. 2004. Vol. 171. P. 40–43.J. Urol. 2004. Vol. 171. P. 40–43.Fisher P.C., Montgomery J.S. et al. 200 consecutiveFisher P.C., Montgomery J.S. et al. 200 consecutivehand assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomies: evo- lution of operative technique and outcomes // J. Urol. 2006. Vol. 175. P. 1439–1443.hand assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomies: evo- lution of operative technique and outcomes // J. Urol. 2006. Vol. 175. P. 1439–1443.Greco F., Hoda M.R., Alcaraz A. et al. Laparoscopic Living-Donor Nephrectomy: Analysis of the Existing Literature // Eur. Urol. 2010. Vol. 58. P. 498–509.Greco F., Hoda M.R., Alcaraz A. et al. Laparoscopic Living-Donor Nephrectomy: Analysis of the Existing Literature // Eur. Urol. 2010. Vol. 58. P. 498–509.Kok N.F., Lind M.Y., Hansson B.M. et al. Comparison of laparoscopic and mini incision open donor nephrectomy; single blind, randomised controlled clinical trial // BMJ. 2006. Vol. 33. P. 221–226.Kok N.F., Lind M.Y., Hansson B.M. et al. Comparison of laparoscopic and mini incision open donor nephrectomy; single blind, randomised controlled clinical trial // BMJ. 2006. Vol. 33. P. 221–226.Oyen O., Andersen M., Mathisen L. et al. Laparosco- pic versus open living-donor nephrectomy: experiences from a prospective, randomized, single-center study fo- cusing on donor safety // Transplantation. 2005. Vol. 79. P. 1236–1240.Oyen O., Andersen M., Mathisen L. et al. Laparosco- pic versus open living-donor nephrectomy: experiences from a prospective, randomized, single-center study fo- cusing on donor safety // Transplantation. 2005. Vol. 79. P. 1236–1240.Power R.E., Preston J.M. et al. Laparoscopic vs open living donor nephrectomy: a contemporary series from one centre // BJU. 2006. Vol. 98. P. 133–136.Power R.E., Preston J.M. et al. Laparoscopic vs open living donor nephrectomy: a contemporary series from one centre // BJU. 2006. Vol. 98. P. 133–136.Ratner L.E., Ciseck L.J., Moore R.G. et al. Laparosco- pic live donor nephrectomy // Transplantation. 1995. Vol. 60. P. 1047.Ratner L.E., Ciseck L.J., Moore R.G. et al. Laparosco- pic live donor nephrectomy // Transplantation. 1995. Vol. 60. P. 1047.Ruszat R., Sulser T., Dickenmann M. et al. Retroperito- neoscopic donor nephrectomy: donor outcome and com- plication rate in comparison with three different tech- niques // World J. Urol. 2006. Vol. 24. P. 113–117.Ruszat R., Sulser T., Dickenmann M. et al. Retroperito- neoscopic donor nephrectomy: donor outcome and com- plication rate in comparison with three different tech- niques // World J. Urol. 2006. Vol. 24. P. 113–117.Simforoosh N., Basiri A. et al. Comparison of laparosco- pic and open donor nephrectomy: a randomized cont- rolled trial // BJU. 2005. Vol. 95. P. 851–855.Simforoosh N., Basiri A. et al. Comparison of laparosco- pic and open donor nephrectomy: a randomized cont- rolled trial // BJU. 2005. Vol. 95. P. 851–855.Sulser T., Gurke L. et al. Retroperitoneoscopic living do- nor nephrectomy: First clinical experiences after 19 ope- rations // J. Endourol. 2004. Vol. 18. P. 257–262.Sulser T., Gurke L. et al. Retroperitoneoscopic living do- nor nephrectomy: First clinical experiences after 19 ope- rations // J. Endourol. 2004. Vol. 18. P. 257–262.Suzuki K., Ishikawa A., Ushiyama T., Fujita K. Retro- peritoneoscopic living donor nephrectomy without gas insufflation: five years Hamamatsu University Experi- ence // Transplant Proc. 2002. Vol. 34. P. 720–721.Suzuki K., Ishikawa A., Ushiyama T., Fujita K. Retro- peritoneoscopic living donor nephrectomy without gas insufflation: five years Hamamatsu University Experi- ence // Transplant Proc. 2002. Vol. 34. P. 720–721.Troppmann C., Perez R.V., McBride M. Similar long- term outcomes for laparoscopic versus open live-donor nephrectomy kidney grafts: an OPTN database analysis of 5532 adult recipients // Transplantation. 2008. Vol. 85. P. 916–919.Troppmann C., Perez R.V., McBride M. Similar long- term outcomes for laparoscopic versus open live-donor nephrectomy kidney grafts: an OPTN database analysis of 5532 adult recipients // Transplantation. 2008. Vol. 85. P. 916–919.Wilson C.H., Bhatti A.A., Rix D.A., Soomro N.A. Compa- rison of laparoscopic and open donor nephrectomy: UK experience // BJU. 2005. Vol. 95. P. 131–135.Wilson C.H., Bhatti A.A., Rix D.A., Soomro N.A. Compa- rison of laparoscopic and open donor nephrectomy: UK experience // BJU. 2005. Vol. 95. P. 131–135.Yang S.C., Lee D.H., Rha K.H., Park K. Retroperitoneo- scopic living donor nephrectomy: two cases // Trans- plant. Proc. 1994 Aug. Vol. 26 (4). P. 2409.Yang S.C., Lee D.H., Rha K.H., Park K. Retroperitoneo- scopic living donor nephrectomy: two cases // Trans- plant. Proc. 1994 Aug. Vol. 26 (4). P. 2409.Yang S.C., Ko W.J., Byun Y.J., Rha K.H. Retroperitoneo- scopy assisted live donor nephrectomy: The Yonsei ex- perience // J. Urol. 2001. Vol. 165. P. 1099–1102.Yang S.C., Ko W.J., Byun Y.J., Rha K.H. Retroperitoneo- scopy assisted live donor nephrectomy: The Yonsei ex- perience // J. Urol. 2001. Vol. 165. P. 1099–1102.Yuzawa K., Shinoda M., Fukao K. Outcome of laparosco- pic living donor nephrectomy in 2007: national survey of transplantation centers in Japan // Transplant. Proc. 2009. Vol. 41. P. 85–87.Yuzawa K., Shinoda M., Fukao K. Outcome of laparosco- pic living donor nephrectomy in 2007: national survey of transplantation centers in Japan // Transplant. Proc. 2009. Vol. 41. P. 85–87.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.