Complications and risks of living donor nephrectomy

2,500 living donor kidney transplants: a single-center experience

OBJECTIVE

To review a single center's experience and outcome with living donor transplants.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Outcome after living donor transplants is better than after cadaver donor transplants. Since the inception of the authors' program, they have performed 2,540 living donor transplants. For the most recent cohort of recipients, improvements in patient care and immunosuppressive protocols have improved outcome. In this review, the authors analyzed outcome in relation to protocol.

METHODS

The authors studied patient and graft survival by decade. For those transplanted in the 1990s, the impact of immunosuppressive protocol, donor source, diabetes, and preemptive transplantation was analyzed. The incidence of rejection, posttransplant steroid-related complications, and return to work was determined. Finally, multivariate analysis was used to study risk factors for worse 1-year graft survival and, for those with graft function at 1 year, to study risk factors for worse long-term survival.

RESULTS

For each decade since 1960, outcome has improved after living donor transplants. Compared with patients transplanted in the 1960s, those transplanted in the 1990s have better 8-year actuarial patient and graft survival rates. Death with function and chronic rejection have continued to be a major cause of graft loss, whereas acute rejection has become a rare cause of graft loss. Cardiovascular deaths have become a more predominant cause of patient death; infection has decreased. Donor source (e.g., ideally HLA-identical sibling) continues to be important. For living donor transplants, rejection and graft survival rates are related to donor source. The authors show that patients who had preemptive transplants or less than 1 year of dialysis have better 5-year graft survival and more frequently return to full-time employment. Readmission and complications remain problems; of patients transplanted in the 1990s, only 36% never required readmission. Similarly, steroid-related complications remain common. The authors' multivariate analysis shows that the major risk factor for worse 1-year graft survival was delayed graft function. For recipients with 1-year graft survival, risk factors for worse long-term outcome were pretransplant smoking, pretransplant peripheral vascular disease, pretransplant dialysis for more than 1 year, one or more acute rejection episodes, and donor age older than 55.

CONCLUSIONS

These data show that the outcome of living donor transplants has continued to improve. However, for living donors, donor source affects outcome. The authors also identify other major risk factors affecting both short- and long-term outcome.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy using newly produced LAP DISC: initial three cases

BACKGROUND

A new abdominal sealing device, called the LAP DISC, was used for the first time in hand-assisted laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (HALDN) on three donors. The LAP DISC is made of three layers of rings connected by a rubber membrane, which covers the peritoneum and abdominal wall. The upper ring can adjust to the surgeon's hand size for insertion.

METHODS

The LAP DISC was seated through an approximately 7-cm midline incision under the xiphoid process. The laparoscopic port was inserted through the LAP DISC, and thereafter, pneumoperitoneum was established. Three trocars were then placed under direct vision. The surgeon's left arm was inserted into the LAP DISC and used for manual retraction, dissection, and hemostasis. In the three operations, the kidneys were removed through the LAP DISC.

RESULTS

The total warm ischemic times of the kidney were 15, 8, and 4 minutes, and the total operative times were 323, 195, and 240 minutes, respectively. After the subsequent transplantation into the recipient, the kidneys produced clear urine immediately on reperfusion. The recipient creatinine fell to 4.2, 5.6, and 3.9 mg/mL on postoperative day 1. All three donors resumed consistent oral intake within 24 hours after surgery and returned to normal, nonstrenuous activity by postoperative day 6.

CONCLUSION

The LAP DISC device is excellent for HALDN and may increase the number of surgeons and donors who select HALDN.

Renal transplantation: laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy

Laparoscopic nephrectomy is now performed at many centers worldwide. This technique for organ harvesting offers less postoperative pain, quicker convalescence, and an optimal cosmetic result when compared with the traditional open approach. With experience, the laparoscopic technique is accomplished without compromise to donor safety or allograft function, and complications are comparable with the rates in open historic series. Longer operative times and the need for disposable equipment result in greater hospital costs; however, the quicker convalescence permits patients to resume activity sooner, allowing marked cost savings for patients and employers. The laparoscopic technique is associated with a steep learning curve. Launching a successful laparoscopic living donor program requires a dedicated coordinated effort involving physicians, nurses, and hospital administration. The ultimate impact of this technique on the willingness of individuals to donate has not yet been determined.

Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy--is it safe?

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (LDN) is a less invasive alternative to open nephrectomy (ODN) for living kidney donation. Concerns have been raised regarding the safety of LDN, the short and long term function of kidneys removed by LDN, and a potential higher incidence of urologic complications in LDN transplant recipients.

METHODS

Between October 1997 and May 1999, 80 LDNs were performed at our center. All patients were followed longitudinally with office visits and telephone interviews. These LDNs were compared with 50 ODN performed from January 1996 to October 1997.

RESULTS

LDN procedures took significantly longer than ODN (4.6 vs. 3.1 hr). However, LDN was associated with significant reduction in i.v. narcotic use, a rapid return to diet, and shorter hospital stay. Of the 80 LDN procedures, a total of 75 (94%) were completed laparoscopically. Five patients were converted to laparotomy: three for hemorrhage and two for complex vascular anatomy. ODN conversion was associated with large donor body habitus and/or obesity. Seven LDN patients had minor complications and 4 had major complications. All major complications consisted of vascular injuries (2 lumbar vein injuries, 1 renal artery, and 1 aortic injury). All patients made complete recoveries. All LDN kidneys functioned immediately posttransplant. We have observed 100% patient and 97% 1-year actuarial graft survival in LDN transplant recipients. There have been no short-or long-term urologic complications in this series.

CONCLUSION

With increasing experience and standardization of technique, LDN is a safe and effective procedure. Patients undergoing LDN demonstrate clinically significant, more rapid postoperative recoveries and shorter hospital stays than ODN patients. Excellent initial graft function and long-term graft survival have been observed with LDN kidneys. Urologic complications can be avoided. LDN has become the preferred surgical approach for living kidney donation at our center.

Living kidney donation: recovery and return to activities of daily living

To determine donor nephrectomy outcomes, a one page 20-item survey of 42 cases was reviewed, including demographics, intervals to normal activities (e.g., driving a car, returning to work), and an open inquiry about the donation process. Hospital records were also reviewed. Nephrectomy under general anesthesia was through an anterior flank, extra-retroperitoneal approach with postoperative epidural pain control. Early self-care, progressive ambulation, and prescriptive pulmonary care were undertaken to facilitate recovery. Length of stay averaged 3.4 (range 2-8) d, and mean hospitalization charge was $15 169 (range $10 733-S29 579). Thirty-four donors were employed outside the home; 18 (53%) returned to work within 4 wk, and the average duration away from work was 4.6 wk (range 6 d 10 wk). Within 2 wk, 25 (59%) were driving an automobile. Usual activities of daily living were fully performed by all donors at a mean of 4.8 wk (minimum 5 d). Forty respondents would donate again, and one might; one did not respond to this question. None reported intermediate or long-term disabilities and all reported return to their pre-donation level of activity. With the anterior extra-retroperitoneal nephrectomy, most donors were out of the hospital within 4 d, were driving within 2 wk, and returned to gainful employment within 4 wk. Living kidney donation, as viewed by the donors, was a positive experience, which appeared to disrupt their lives minimally.

Living unrelated donor kidney transplantation

BACKGROUND

Living unrelated donors remain an underutilized resource, despite their high graft survival rates. In this article, we updated the long-term results of more than 2500 living unrelated donor transplants performed in the United States.

METHODS

Between 1987 and 1998, 1765 spouse, 986 living unrelated, 27,535 living related, and 86,953 cadaver donor grafts were reported to the United Network for Organ Sharing Kidney Registry. Kaplan-Meier curves compared graft survival rates in stratified analyses, and a log-linear analysis adjusted donor-specific outcomes for the effects of 24 other transplant factors.

RESULTS

The long-term survival rates for both spouse and living unrelated transplants were essentially the same (5-year graft survivals of 75 and 72% and half-lives of 14 and 13 years, respectively). The results were similar to that for parent donor grafts (5-year graft survival = 74% and half-life = 12 years) and were significantly (P = 0.003) better than cadaver donor grafts (5-year graft survival = 62% and half-life = 9 years). After adjusting for the presence of transplant factors known to influence survival rates, recipients of living unrelated donor kidney transplants still had superior outcomes compared with cadaver transplants.

CONCLUSIONS

Living unrelated kidney donors represent the fastest growing donor source in the United States and provide excellent long-term results. Encouraging spouses to donate could remove nearly 15% of the patients from the UNOS waiting list, effectively increasing the number of available cadaveric organs.

Kidney transplantation from living unrelated donors

Kidney transplant candidates increasingly are looking to their relatives, spouses, and even friends for a better chance at transplantation. The wait for a cadaver kidney might be 2-5 years. Although kidneys from well-matched family members have been transplanted with excellent results for many years, accepting living donors who are genetically unrelated to the patient has not been encouraged until recently. Results show that, among 1700 patients who received kidney transplants from living unrelated donors in the United States from 1995 through 1998, the one- and projected ten-year graft survival rates were 92% and 67%, respectively. These results are superior to the 87% and 50% rates for more than 26,000 cadaver kidney transplants during the same period. Risks to the donor are low (< 0.005% mortality and < 0.3% serious complications) but not absent. Thus, motivated spouses, friends, and adopted or step-family members can play an important role in the rehabilitation of patients who need a kidney transplant.

Kidney donors don't regret: follow-up of 370 donors in Stockholm since 1964

BACKGROUND

The aim of the study was to present the views of our kidney donors since 1964, at the time of donation, as well as later on--and to assess their current subjective health.

METHODS

A total of 451 living-donor nephrectomies were performed on Swedish residents in Stockholm from April 1964 until the end of 1995. A questionnaire with 11 questions about the donation and a standardized health form (SF-36) were sent to all donors alive in 1997 (n=403).

RESULTS

The mean age (+/-SD) of the donors was 61+/-14 years at follow-up and the time-since-donation was 12.5+/-7.7 years. The response rate was very good (92%). Current health, as assessed by form SF-36, was satisfactory. Donors scored somewhat better than those reported in a random sample of the Swedish population. The decision to donate had been easy: 86% made the decision themselves, without being pushed. Twenty-three percent thought that the nephrectomy had been troublesome. A higher percentage of young donors had felt that the postoperative period was difficult. Most donors (56%) stated that it had taken more than 2 months before they returned to a "normal" life, and 5% felt that they never completely recovered. Less than 1% of the donors regretted the donation. The commonest current medical prescription was antihypertensives (15%). The actual mean serum creatinine was 103+/-22 (range 48-219) micromol/L.

CONCLUSIONS

The results indicate that the degree of health is at least as high as in the general population. The decision to donate was easy for most of the donors, but surgery and the recovery period were troublesome and lasted longer than expected. Kidney function was acceptable.

Complication after laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a case report and review

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic procedures are gaining acceptance in the treatment of benign and some malignant urologic disorders. Recently, laparoscopic techniques have been applied to transplant surgery and touted as a safe alternative to traditional open techniques.

METHODS

We present a patient who developed a complication from laparoscopic donor nephrectomy that required open corrective surgery.

RESULTS

A 25-year-old man underwent laparoscopic donor nephrectomy at a large medical center familiar with the operation. There were no operative or early postoperative complications. Within 6 weeks of the operation, the patient developed signs and symptoms of partial small bowel obstruction. Further evaluation revealed an internal hernia in the retroperitoneum at the site of the nephrectomy. This required a second operation to reduce the hernia and close the defect.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy remains an evolving technique that has not stood the test of time. Larger series will eventually reveal whether this is the procedure of choice as compared to traditional open donor nephrectomy.

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: standard of care or unnecessary risk of organ loss?

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy was developed to remove disincentives to live donation. It has been demonstrated to decrease the length of hospitalization, postoperative pain, time to convalescence and activity, while providing an optimal cosmetic result. Initial reports suggest that laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is feasible and equivalent to open donor nephrectomy.

Living donors >55 years: to use or not to use?

BACKGROUND

Kidney transplants using older donors are becoming increasingly accepted as a strategy for alleviating the growing donor organ shortage. Most studies to date have shown decreased graft survival associated with the use of older cadaver donors; however, studies on the effect of living donor age on graft survival are less clear-cut.

METHODS

We studied the effect of donor age on patient and graft survival after 1126 consecutive cyclosporine-treated primary kidney transplants performed between January 1, 1985 and December 31, 1995. Of these grafts, 598 were from living donors (74 from donors >55 years old) and 528 from cadaver donors (54 from donors >55 years). We calculated actuarial patient survival, graft survival, and death-censored graft survival for recipients of both living donor and cadaver kidneys. Living donors were then further divided by HLA mismatch (0 vs. 1 - 6) and the presence or absence of an acute rejection episode. Multivariate analysis of factors associated with decreased graft survival was performed for recipients of both living and cadaver donor kidneys. Factors included for analysis were donor age >55 years, recipient age >50 years, the presence of diabetes mellitus, HLA mismatch (0 vs. 1 - 6), and the presence of an acute rejection episode.

RESULTS

For cadaver kidneys, univariate analysis indicates that both overall (P=0.004) and death-censored (P=0.001) graft survival was significantly better with younger cadaver kidneys. This is supported by our multivariate analysis, which shows that cadaver donor age >55 years is an independent predictor of poor actuarial graft survival (P=0.0003). For living donor kidneys, univariate analysis also indicates that both overall (P=0.045) and death-censored (P=0.005) graft survival was significantly better with younger living donor kidneys. However, in the absence of acute rejection, 10-year death-censored graft survival for patients with older vs. younger living donor kidneys was 93% vs. 94%, whereas in the presence of one or more acute rejection episodes, 10-year death-censored graft survival dropped markedly to 39% with older and 54% with younger living donors. Kidneys from living donors >55 years had significantly better long-term graft survival than cadaver donors >55 years (P=0.012) and had comparable graft survival to younger cadaver donors. In contrast to our univariate analysis, multivariate analysis of our living donor data shows that decreased actuarial living donor death-censored graft survival was significantly associated only with the presence of one or more acute rejection episodes (P<0.0001). Living donor age >55 years was not independently associated with decreased graft survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Ours is the largest single-center study of outcome for recipients of kidneys from living donors >55 years. Using univariate analysis, we have shown that graft survival of kidneys from older living donors is significantly better than that of kidneys from older cadaver donors and is comparable to that of kidneys from younger cadaver donors. Using multivariate analysis, we have shown that the presence of one or more acute rejection episodes significantly shortens both cadaver and living donor long-term graft survival. Most significantly, we have shown that, although the use of kidneys from cadaver donors >55 years is associated with significantly decreased long-term graft survival, no such association exists for recipients of kidneys from living donors >55 years. We feel that our data support the continued use of kidneys from older living donors.

Long-term follow-up of living kidney donors: quality of life after donation

The University of Minnesota has been a strong advocate of living donor kidney transplants. The benefits for living donor recipients have been well documented. The relative low risk of physical complications during donation has also been well documented. Less well understood is the psychosocial risk to donors. Most published reports have indicated an improved sense of well-being and a boost in self-esteem for living kidney donors. However, there have been some reports of depression and disrupted family relationships after donation, even suicide after a recipient's death. To determine the quality of life of our donors, we sent a questionnaire to 979 who had donated a kidney between August 1, 1984, and December 31, 1996. Of the 60% who responded, the vast majority had an excellent quality of life. As a group, they scored higher than the national norm on the SF-36, a standardized quality of life health questionnaire. However, 4% were dissatisfied and regretted the decision to donate. Further, 4% found the experience extremely stressful and 8% very stressful. We used multivariate analysis to identify risk factors for this poor psychosocial outcome and found that relatives other than first degree (odds ratio=3.5, P=0.06) and donors whose recipient died within 1 year of transplant (odds ratio=3.3, P=0.014) were more likely to say they would not donate again if it were possible. Further, donors who had perioperative complications (odds ratio=3.5, P=0.007) and female donors (odds ratio=1.8, P=0.1) were more likely to find the overall experience more stressful. Overall, the results of this study are overwhelmingly positive and have encouraged us to continue living donor kidney transplants.

A comparison of recipient renal outcomes with laparoscopic versus open live donor nephrectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (laparoNx) has the potential to increase living kidney donation rates by reducing the pain and suffering of the donor. However, renal function outcomes of a large series of recipients of laparoNx have not been studied.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the records of 132 recipients of laparoNx done at our center between 3/96 and 11/97 and compared them to 99 recipients of kidneys procured by the open technique (openNx) done between 10/93 and 3/96.

RESULTS

Significantly more patients in the laparoNx group (25.2%) were taking tacrolimus within the first month than those in the openNx group (2.1%). Mean serum creatinine was higher in laparoNx compared with openNx at 1 week (2.8+/-0.3 and 1.8+/-0.2 mg/dl, respectively; P=0.005) and at 1 month (2.0+/-0.1 and 1.6+/-0.1 mg/dl, P=0.05) after transplant. However, by 3 and 6 months, the mean serum creatinine was similar in the two groups (1.7+/-0.1 versus 1.5+/-0.05 mg/dl, and 1.7+/-0.1 versus 1.7+/-0.1, respectively). By 1 year posttransplant, the mean serum creatinine for laparoNx was actually less than that for openNx (1.4+/-0.1 and 1.7+/-0.1 mg/dl, P=0.03). Although patients in the laparoNx compared to the openNx group were more likely to have delayed graft function (7.6 versus 2.0%) and ureteral complications (4.5 versus 1.0%), the rate of other complications, as well as hospital length of stay, patient and graft survival rates were similar in the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Although laparoNx allografts have slower initial function compared with openNx, there was no significant difference in longer term renal function.

Living donor nephrectomy

The need for more organs for kidney transplantation is increasing. Cadaver sources for these organs are stable, therefore living donation must increase if the need is to be met. Less perfect kidneys are now being transplanted. The pool of potential donors is being expanded. The process of kidney donation is being made easier in an effort to increase the number of donors. The donor work-up is being streamlined. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy has been introduced, and appears to be promising as a technique of lessening donor pain and suffering, while maintaining excellent graft results.

Living-unrelated kidney donation: a single-center experience

For 140 consecutive renal transplants performed from January 1995 to October 1997, 25 (18%) were from living-unrelated donors (15 women, 10 men, aged 25-63, mean 43 yr). All donors had pre-transplant imaging evaluation of renal anatomy following renal function assessment (minimal creatinine clearance 75 cm3/min). Admission to the hospital on the day of donation preceded nephrectomy under general anesthesia using an anterior flank, extra-retroperitoneal approach (no rib resection). Post-operative epidural pain control was used for all but 1 donor. The 25 kidney donors were hospitalized for 2 (n = 1), 3 (n = 12), 4 (n = 7), or 5-8 d (n = 5) (average 3.9 d) and had a mean hospitalization charge of $15,501 (range $10,808-$29,579). One intra-operative hemorrhage required transfusion; 1 late neural-related pain syndrome required outpatient wound exploration. Two kidneys were lost: a husband recipient from repetitive acute rejections at 3 months; a friend recipient from chronic rejection at 2.5 yr; both await cadaver transplant. The other 23 kidneys are functioning with a mean serum creatinine of 1.8 (range 1.0-3.3) at 3-36 months (patient survival 100%; graft survival 92%). While most donors were spouses (8 husbands and 10 wives), friends, distant cousins, in-laws, and adoptive relatives did well as donors and recipients. Transplantation may increase by 20% or more at centers which encourage broad application of living donor nephrectomy.

Laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy and multiple renal arteries

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) is a new technique. While the short-term recipient renal function is equivalent to that of the traditional open nephrectomy (ODN), long-term function and potential exclusion criteria, such as the presence of multiple renal arteries, are as yet unknown.

METHODS

Retrospective review of 124 consecutive LDN performed from March 1996 to September 1997 with 117 ODN as historical controls.

RESULTS

The 1-year actuarial graft and patient survival for LDN kidneys were 94% and 95%, respectively. These were not statistically different from that of the ODN controls. The presence of multiple renal arteries did not alter graft and patient survival or prevalence of immunologic events. The number of recipient ureteral complications in the LDN group was 11.2% compared with 3.4% in ODN (P < 0.01). Following correction for a learning curve with accompanying technical modifications, the prevalence of recipient ureteral complications has decreased to 7% in the last 94 patients (P = nonsignificant versus ODN).

CONCLUSIONS

LDN represents a viable alternative to ODN for living renal transplants. Advantages for the donor are matched by equivalent functional results for the recipients.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy

Minimally invasive live donor nephrectomy has been described using both standard laparoscopic dissection and "gasless" endoscopically assisted techniques. We report another method, hand-assisted laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy, which uses an occlusive sleeve to maintain pneumoperitoneum. The procedure is performed under excellent laparoscopic visualization in a generous operative field, and is facilitated substantially by manual assistance, which takes advantage throughout the procedure of the incision that is necessary for intact organ removal. The results of our first procedure are encouraging.

Kidney transplants from living donors: how donation affects family dynamics

Living donors continue to provide the optimum outcome for kidney transplant recipients, yet information is limited on how donation can affect the donor and his or her family. Questionnaires returned by 524 donors whose donor nephrectomies took place between August 1, 1985 and December 31, 1996 at the University of Minnesota were analyzed to determine if perioperative complications influence their quality of life, among other emotional and lifestyle areas. Results showed that donors have a higher quality of life than the general population, confirming they have an increased self-worth and positive self-esteem. An overwhelming 96% would donate again. However, donation was self-reported as more stressful when complications were experienced (P = .003) and when donors were female (P = .041). Relatives other than immediate family members (extended relatives) were more likely to be among the 4% who said they would not donate again. Available support, financial impact, and relationship changes as a result of donation also were revealed. Relevant results from this larger study are discussed as they relate to how the renal donor and transplant family are affected.