Should the indications for laparascopic live donor nephrectomy of the right kidney be the same as for the open procedure? Anomalous left renal vasculature is not a contraindiction to laparoscopic left donor nephrectomy

Right laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: a single institution experience

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (LLDN) is increasingly used by transplantation centers worldwide. As in open live donor nephrectomy, the left kidney is preferred for LLDN; however, not all potential donors have anatomy conducive to left nephrectomy. The purpose of our study, therefore, was to report on a large, single-institution experience with right LLDN performed using a hand-assisted, transperitoneal approach.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of 40 consecutive patients who underwent transperitoneal right hand-assisted LLDN at our institution. Information on donor age, relation to recipient, and indication for right-sided donation was collected. Surgical demographics included operative time, warm ischemia time, and estimated blood loss. Recipients were followed for graft loss and for long-term renal allograft function.

RESULTS

The indications for right-sided donor nephrectomy were a difference in split renal function of greater than 10%, multiple left renal vessels, and right renal cysts. The mean surgical time in our series was 115.8 min, with a mean estimated blood loss of 85.7 mL and a warm ischemia time of 116.0 seconds. Surgical and postoperative complications were limited. Mean serum creatinine levels in the recipients were 1.6 mg/dL on day 7, 1.4 mg/dL on day 30, and 1.4 mg/dL at 1 year after transplantation.

CONCLUSIONS

Right LLDN using a hand-assisted, transperitoneal technique was performed with minimal morbidity and favorable graft function. We believe that offering hand-assisted LLDN to patients with an indication for right-sided donation can safely and effectively increase the pool of donor organs available to patients with end-stage renal disease.

Factors related to delayed graft function after laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy

PURPOSE

Delayed graft function after live donor transplantation affects 5% to 10% of recipients regardless of procurement technique. This delay in function is associated with an increased risk of rejection and decreased graft survival. In the present study we critically assess allograft recovery to identify the risk factors related to delayed graft function.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed donor and recipient medical records from 100 consecutive laparoscopic live donor nephrectomies from August 1997 to October 2001. Four criteria were used to classify delayed graft function: I) requirement of dialysis in postoperative week 1, II) creatinine 2.5 mg/dl or greater at postoperative day 5, III) time to half peak activity (mercaptoacetyltriglycine renal scan) at postoperative day 5 greater than 12.2 minutes (normal range 1 to 12.2) and IV) time to peak activity (mercaptoacetyltriglycine renal scan) at day 5 greater than 6.5 minutes (normal range 2.1 to 6.5). Patients could qualify for multiple outcome categories. Patients who did not match any of these criteria were classified as having normal renal function (outcome 0).

RESULTS

The number of patients in the delayed graft function categories were 5 with outcome I, 14 with outcome II, 39 with outcome III and 24 with outcome IV. There were 23 patients represented in more than 1 category and 59 patients were classified as having normal function. Recipient age, donor/recipient gender relationship, unrelated highly mismatched donors and cold/total preservation time were identified as risk factors related to impaired early renal function recovery. None of the variables related to the laparoscopic technique itself represented risk factors for delayed graft function.

CONCLUSIONS

Female donor kidneys into male recipients and highly HLA mismatched donors represent factors that may be controlled by donor selection when feasible. All attempts should be made to decrease cold ischemia time and, therefore, total preservation time. Prolonged carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum, warm ischemia time, renal artery length or use of right kidney did not adversely affect the functional outcome of the allografts procured laparoscopically.

Laparoscopic Live Donor Nephrectomy in the Presence Of Circumaortic or Retroaortic Left Renal Vein

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy is now an accepted alternative to open surgery in donors with normal renal vasculature. However, the suitability of laparoscopy for donors with anomalous vasculature is less well known. We compared the donor and recipient outcome data of 16 patients with circumaortic or retroaortic left renal vein to 20 recent patients with normal left renal venous anatomy undergoing laparoscopic donor left nephrectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Of 170 patients undergoing laparoscopic donor nephrectomy at our institution from October 1997 to October 2002, 18 (10.6%) had either a circumaortic or retroaortic left renal vein (group 1). Demographic and perioperative parameters of these donors and their recipients were retrospectively compared to a contemporary cohort of 20 recent patients with a normal single left renal vein (group 2).

RESULTS

All laparoscopic procedures were completed successfully without open conversion. Groups 1 and 2 were similar in regard to operative time (199 vs 226 minutes, p = 0.90), blood loss (125 vs 100 cc, p = 0.45), warm ischemia time (3.4 vs 3.9 minutes, p = 0.14) and hospital stay (2.9 vs 3.2 days, p = 0.45). Length of allograft renal artery and vein was similar between groups. Cold ischemia and revascularization times were also comparable between groups. Recipient serum creatinine was comparable at 5 days (1.7 vs 1.6 mg/dl), 3 months (1.5 vs 1.4 mg/dl) and 1 year (1.5 vs 1.5 mg/dl).

CONCLUSIONS

Presence of a circumaortic or retroaortic renal vein is not a contraindication to laparoscopic live donor left nephrectomy. A left kidney with vasculature anatomically adequate for transplantation can be achieved with excellent donor and recipient outcomes.

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

Background

Living kidney donation represents an important source of organs for patients with end-stage renal failure. Over the past decade, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy has replaced the conventional open procedure in many transplant centres. Using evidence-based methods, this study examines the current status of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.

Method

A Medline literature search (PubMed database, 1999–2002) and manual cross-referencing were performed to identify all articles relating to laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Safety and efficacy criteria were analysed systematically for each study. Studies included were categorized using an evidence-based level grading system.

Results

Of 687 publications, 20 studies with level I–II evidence and 12 with level III evidence were analysed. Only one level I study could be identified. Level I and level II evidence suggests superiority of the laparoscopic approach in regard to postoperative analgesic consumption, hospital stay and return to work. Other safety and efficacy criteria, including donor and recipient outcomes, were similar between the two techniques.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy has gained community acceptance by physicians and patients over the past decade. Despite a lack of strong evidence, such as large prospective randomized studies, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is likely to become the ‘gold standard’ for donor nephrectomy in the near future.

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy at a low volume living donor transplant center: successful outcomes can be expected

PURPOSE

Concern has been raised about possible increased morbidity associated with laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) during the learning curve of the procedure and at centers with a low volume of living donors. We evaluated the safety and success of LDN at a low volume living donor transplant center with a skilled laparoscopic urologist and experienced renal transplant team.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We reviewed the records of all patients who underwent LDN at our institution. A single surgeon skilled in laparoscopy (JAC) performed all LDNs. Patient demographics, operative reports, complications and recipient outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 17 LDNs were performed between January 2000 and September 2002. There was 1 elective conversion to an open procedure for kidney harvest due to complex hilar anatomy. Only 1 minor complication occurred (wound seroma) and 1 donor had creatinine persistently elevated to 1.9 mg/dl (normal 0.6 to 1.2). Mean operating room time, estimated blood loss and hospital stay were 250 minutes, 188 ml and 2.5 days, respectively. Recipient creatinine had a nadir mean of 1.2 mg/dl and a 90-day postoperative mean of 1.6 mg/dl. One recipient eventually lost the graft due to recurrent disease.

CONCLUSIONS

LDN can be performed safely and efficiently at low volume transplant centers with a skilled laparoscopist and experienced renal transplant team. Laparoscopic skills developed during similar procedures, such as laparoscopic radical and partial nephrectomy, minimize the learning curve and morbidity of LDN to produce results consistent with those in the published literature.

Comparison of Outcomes in Noncomplicated and in Higher-Risk Donors after Standard versus Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Nephrectomy

Hand-assisted techniques facilitated dissemination of the laparoscopic approach in live kidney donors and addressed concerns regarding potential procedural complications. We report our experience with both standard and hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy in routine, complicated, and higher-risk donors. From July 1999 to September 2002, 47 donors underwent standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (SLDN; n = 29) or hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN; n = 18). Donors were “complicated” if they were >60 years of age, obese, refused blood-product transfusion, had multiple renal arteries or veins, or had right nephrectomies. “Higher-risk” donors had two or more risk factors. Results for SLDN and HALDN were compared for the overall groups and for the “complicated” and “higher-risk” groups. No donor required blood transfusion or reoperation. Warm-ischemia times were shorter in left nephrectomies (191 ± 72 seconds vs. 337 ± 95 seconds, P = 0.005), and blood loss was greater in patients with a body mass index ≥30 kg/m2 (296 ± 232 mL vs. 170 ± 139 mL, P = 0.03). Higher-risk donors had an increased operative blood loss and longer hospital stay than low-risk donors. Mean donor creatinine at discharge was 1.19 ± 0.2 mg/dL. Comparison of SLDN versus HALDN revealed shorter operating times for the latter, which approached statistical significance. Warm-ischemia time, operative blood loss, length of hospitalization, and donor and recipient discharge creatinines were similar for both groups. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy can be applied to selected higher-risk donors with outcomes comparable to uncomplicated donors. Hand-assisted techniques facilitate the procedure during the learning curve, with advantages similar to standard laparoscopic techniques.

Multidetector CT angiography for preoperative evaluation of living laparoscopic kidney donors

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of multidetector CT (MDCT) angiography as the primary imaging technique in the evaluation of living kidney donors.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Seventy-four consecutive living kidney donors (30 men, 44 women; mean age, 41.7 years) who underwent MDCT were evaluated. CT examination was performed with 120 mL of IV contrast material at an injection rate of 3 mL/sec and a pitch of 6. In every case, arterial and venous phase volumetric data sets were acquired at 25 and 55 sec, respectively. Scans were reconstructed at 1-mm intervals for three-dimensional (3D) imaging using a volume-rendering technique. Axial CT images and 3D CT angiography were evaluated prospectively by one reviewer and retrospectively by two reviewers who had no knowledge of surgical results. Surgical correlation for the location of primary and accessory renal arteries, early branching of the renal arteries, and renal vein anomalies was made.

RESULTS

Seventy-two subjects underwent left nephrectomy, and two subjects underwent right nephrectomy because supernumerary left renal arteries were detected on preoperative CT angiography. Eighteen supernumerary renal arteries (two arteries to 16 kidneys and three arteries to one kidney) to 74 kidneys underwent nephrectomy. CT and surgical findings agreed in 93% of subjects (the average of three reviewers; range, 89-97%). Two small accessory renal arteries were missed by all three reviewers. Those arteries were diminutive and were thought to be insignificant by the surgeons. Early branching of the renal arteries was shown in 14 arteries, and CT and surgical findings agreed in 96% (the average of three reviewers; range, 93-97%). Renal vein anomalies were present in eight subjects, and CT and surgical findings agreed in 99% of the cases (range, 96-100%).

CONCLUSION

MDCT angiography is highly accurate for detecting vascular anomalies and providing anatomic information for laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy.

[Laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy of kidneys with multiple renal vessels]

Due to the increasing waiting time for transplantation of a cadaveric kidney, living donor kidney transplantation is an increasingly oncoming issue. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomies (LDN) have been performed since 1995 and presently more than 100 transplant centers offer this minimally invasive surgical approach. The advantages for the donor of less pain, shorter hospital stay, earlier return to work, better cosmetic results in combination with an organ function equal to open donor nephrectomy are the reasons for an enormous increase in LDN. Since up to 30% of the donor kidneys have multiple vessels for blood supply, an increase of these organs for LDN can be expected. We performed a retrospective study of LDN at our center and compared donors with multiple vs single vessel supply. From February 1999 to September 2002, 63 LDN were performed at the department of Urology, Charité University Hospital, Berlin. A comparison between 18 donor kidneys with multiple vessel supply and 45 donor organs with single vessels showed no difference for the time of laparoscopic explantation (207 vs 201 min, p=0.4) or the warm (166 vs 148 s, p=0.2) and cold ischemic times (117 vs 103 min, p=0.66). As could be expected, the mixed ischemic time, i.e., the time for anastomosis of the kidney with the recipient's vessels, showed a significant difference (53 vs 46 min, p=0.02). Intra- and postoperative complication rates for donors and recipients were not different in both groups. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy for kidneys with multiple vessels is feasible and safe for donor and recipient.

Maximizing renal artery length in right laparoscopic donor nephrectomy by retrocaval exposure of the aortorenal junction

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) has become the standard of care at increasing numbers of renal transplant programs worldwide. As in open donor nephrectomy, the left kidney has remained the preferred organ for LDN because of the greater renal vessel lengths. Currently, the overwhelming majority of donor operations are performed on the left kidney. This disparity may be due to an unfamiliarity with the technique of right LDN and technical difficulties encountered in obtaining adequate arterial and venous vessel lengths. Modifications in the laparoscopic technique have increased the length of the renal vein obtained from either side; however, further techniques are needed to maximize the length of the right renal artery in LDN. Herein the authors present a technique to provide exposure of the right aortorenal junction that provides maximal length of the right renal artery. This technique has currently been used in 20 consecutive right LDN operations without vascular complications or technical graft losses.

Techniques to optimize vascular control during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

OBJECTIVES

To review our experience with laparoscopic donor nephrectomy for kidney transplantation and describe our technique of vessel ligation.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the method of renal artery and vein control during the 97 laparoscopic donor nephrectomies performed at the University of California, San Francisco, since November 1999. In addition, we examined both donor and recipient outcomes after nephrectomy and transplantation in this cohort.

RESULTS

Currently, we ligate the renal artery and renal vein using a single Hem-o-lok polymer clip and a single Endo-TA stapler, respectively, and divide the vessels using scissors without securing the graft-side vessels. In contrast to using the Endo-GIA stapler, there is no need to trim staples (approximately 5 mm) from the vessels before anastomosis. Excellent vessel length was achieved in all cases without donor complications, and 99% of recipients had long-term graft function. The only major complications (blood transfusion, conversion to open surgery) occurred early in the series when we used the Endo-GIA stapler to control the vessels.

CONCLUSIONS

Although adequate vessel length is typically obtained during left donor nephrectomy, additional length can be achieved using our modification. This may facilitate right donor nephrectomy and help reduce complications, potentially increasing the recovery of right kidneys for transplantation. In addition, performing vessel ligation and division in separate steps is simple, does not change ischemic time, and appears to increase safety.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy as an alternative to traditional laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy

The benefits of laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy (LDN) are well described, while similar data on hand-assisted laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy (HALDN) are lacking. We compare hand-assisted laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy with open donor nephrectomy. One hundred consecutive hand-assisted laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy (10/98-8/01) donor/recipient pairs were compared to 50 open donor nephrectomy pairs (8/97-1/00). Mean donor weights were similar (179.6 +/- 40.8 vs. 167.4 +/- 30.3 lb; p = NS), while donor age was greater among hand-assisted laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy (38.2 +/- 9.5 vs. 31.2 +/- 7.8 year; p < 0.01). Right nephrectomies was fewer in hand-assisted laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy [17/100 (17%) vs. 22/50 (44%); p < 0.05]. Operative time for hand-assisted laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy (3.9 +/- 0.7 vs. 2.9 +/- 0.5 h; p < 0.01) was longer; however, return to diet (6.9 +/- 2.8 vs. 25.6 +/- 6.1 h; p < 0.01), narcotics requirement (17.9 +/- 6.3 vs. 56.3 +/- 6.4h; p < 0.01) and length of stay (51.7 +/- 22.2 vs. 129.6 +/- 65.7 h; p < 0.01) were less than open donor nephrectomy. Costs were similar ($11072 vs. 10840). Graft function and 1-week Cr of 1.4 +/- 0.9 vs. 1.6 +/- 1.1 g/dL (p = NS) were similar. With the introduction of HALDN, our laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy program has increased by 20%. Thus, similar to traditional laparoscopic donor nephrectomy, hand-assisted laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy provides advantages over open donor nephrectomy without increasing costs.

Right-sided laparoscopic live-donor nephrectomy: is reluctance still justified?

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) of the right kidney is performed with great reluctance because of the shorter renal vein and possible increased incidence of venous thrombosis.

METHODS

In this retrospective, clinical study, right LDN and left LDN were compared. Between December 1997 and May 2001, 101 LDN were performed. Seventy-three (72%) right LDN were compared with 28 (28%) left LDN for clinical characteristics, operative data, and graft function.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding conversion rate, complications, hospital stay, thrombosis, graft function, and graft survival. Operating time was significantly shorter in the right LDN group (218 vs. 280 min).

CONCLUSION

In this study, right LDN was not associated with a higher number of complications, conversions, or incidence of venous thrombosis compared with the left LDN. Thus, reluctance toward right LDN is not justified, and therefore, right LDN should not be avoided.

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: an update

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy was developed primarily to increase the number of kidneys available for donation. Further evidence of the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy has been reported in the literature, as have studies on the cost-effectiveness of this procedure and its role in removing disincentives for renal donation. Specific technical modifications have been developed and refined that improve outcomes when performing laparoscopic harvesting of right kidneys. Other technical modifications have been developed for use in obese patients. With the adoption of these modified techniques, equivalent results to open donor nephrectomy have been reported. Recently, a wide range of alternative approaches (hand-assisted, retroperitoneal, and gasless laparoscopy) have been utilized for laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.