Operative and clinical outcomes of minimally invasive living‐donor surgery on uterus transplantation: A literature review

Yusuke Matoba, Iori Kisu, Kouji Banno, Daisuke Aoki

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

Abstract

Background: The surgical approach and choice of drainage veins for uterus transplantation living‐donor surgery have been investigated to reduce invasiveness. Methods: A thorough search of the PubMed database was conducted. The search was not limited by language or date of publication. The data were collected on 13 October 2020. Two reviewers independently assessed each article and determined eligibility for inclusion in the review article. Inclusion criteria were English peer‐reviewed articles reporting surgical information or postoperative course, articles re-garding animal research on UTx, UTx on deceased donors, or not original articles. Results: Of the 51 operations within 26 articles reviewed, the mean operative time was shortest in the laparoscopic approach, and longest in the robot‐assisted approach. The mean blood loss was less in the laparoscopic and robot‐assisted approaches than in the open approach. In cases where the uterine veins were not preserved, the mean operative time was shortened by each approach and the mean blood loss decreased with the laparoscopic and robot‐assisted approaches. Conclusions: These procedures may contribute to less invasive living‐donor surgery.

Original languageEnglish
Article number349
Pages (from-to)1-12
Number of pages12
JournalJournal of Clinical Medicine
Volume10
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2021 Jan 2

Keywords

  • Laparoscopy
  • Laparotomy
  • Living donor surgery
  • Ovarian vein
  • Robot assisted
  • Uterine vein
  • Utero‐ovarian vein
  • Uterus transplantation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Operative and clinical outcomes of minimally invasive living‐donor surgery on uterus transplantation: A literature review'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this