Comparison of the laparoscopic versus open live donor nephrectomy: an overview of surgical complications and outcome

Deep neuromuscular blockade in adults undergoing an abdominal laparoscopic procedure

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery is the preferred option for many procedures. To properly perform laparoscopic surgery, it is essential that sudden movements and abdominal contractions in patients are prevented, as it limits the surgeon's view. There has been a growing interest in the potential beneficial effect of deep neuromuscular blockade (NMB) in laparoscopic surgery. Deep NMB improves the surgical field by preventing abdominal contractions, and it is thought to decrease postoperative pain. However, it is uncertain if deep NMB improves intraoperative safety and thereby improves clinical outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of deep neuromuscular blockade versus no, shallow, or moderate neuromuscular blockade during laparoscopic intra- or transperitoneal procedures in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 31 July 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) in adults undergoing laparoscopic intra- or transperitoneal procedures comparing deep NMB to moderate, shallow, or no NMB. We excluded trials that did not report any of the primary or secondary outcomes of our review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. all-cause mortality, 2. health-related quality of life, and 3. proportion of participants with serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were 4. proportion of participants with non-serious adverse events, 5. readmissions within three months, 6. short-term pain scores, 7. measurements of postoperative recovery, and 8. operating time. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 42 randomised clinical trials with 3898 participants. Most trials included participants undergoing intraperitoneal oncological resection surgery. We present the Peto fixed-effect model for most dichotomous outcomes as only sparse events were reported. Comparison 1: deep versus moderate NMB Thirty-eight trials compared deep versus moderate NMB. Deep NMB may have no effect on mortality, but the evidence is very uncertain (Peto odds ratio (OR) 7.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 115.43; 12 trials, 1390 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Deep NMB likely results in little to no difference in health-related quality of life up to four days postoperative (mean difference (MD) 4.53 favouring deep NMB on the Quality of Recovery-40 score, 95% CI 0.96 to 8.09; 5 trials, 440 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; mean difference lower than the mean clinically important difference of 10 points). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of deep NMB on intraoperatively serious adverse events (deep NMB 38/1150 versus moderate NMB 38/1076; Peto OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.52; 21 trials, 2231 participants; very low-certainty evidence), short-term serious adverse events (up to 60 days) (deep NMB 37/912 versus moderate NMB 42/852; Peto OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.42; 16 trials, 1764 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and short-term non-serious adverse events (Peto OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.35; 11 trials, 1232 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Deep NMB likely does not alter the duration of surgery (MD -0.51 minutes, 95% CI -3.35 to 2.32; 34 trials, 3143 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is uncertain if deep NMB alters the length of hospital stay (MD -0.22 days, 95% CI -0.49 to 0.06; 19 trials, 2084 participants; low-certainty evidence) or pain scores one hour after surgery (MD -0.31 points on the numeric rating scale, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.03; 22 trials, 1823 participants; very low-certainty evidence; mean clinically important difference 1 point) and 24 hours after surgery (MD -0.60 points on the numeric rating scale, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.15; 16 trials, 1404 participants; very low-certainty evidence; mean clinically important difference 1 point). Comparison 2: deep versus shallow NMB Three trials compared deep versus shallow NMB. The trials did not report on mortality and health-related quality of life. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of deep NMB compared to shallow NMB on the proportion of serious adverse events (RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.50 to 5.57; 2 trials, 158 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Comparison 3: deep versus no NMB One trial compared deep versus no NMB. There was no mortality in this trial, and health-related quality of life was not reported. The proportion of serious adverse events was 0/25 in the deep NMB group and 1/25 in the no NMB group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about the effects of deep NMB compared to moderate NMB on all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Deep NMB likely results in little to no difference in health-related quality of life and duration of surgery compared to moderate NMB, and it may have no effect on the length of hospital stay. Due to the very low-certainty evidence, we do not know what the effect is of deep NMB on non-serious adverse events, pain scores, or readmission rates. Randomised clinical trials with adequate reporting of all adverse events would reduce the current uncertainties. Due to the low number of identified trials and the very low certainty of evidence, we do not know what the effect of deep NMB on serious adverse events is compared to shallow NMB and no NMB. We found no trials evaluating mortality and health-related quality of life.

A comparison of pre- and post-operative outcomes in living donors undergoing transperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy and open nephrectomy: a retrospective single-center study

BACKGROUND

Kidney transplantation is often regarded as the preferred therapy for end-stage renal disease. Several surgical procedures have been developed to reduce postoperative donor complications, while maintaining kidney quality.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the preoperative and postoperative outcomes of living kidney donors who underwent either transperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy or open nephrectomy.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Retrospective study conducted in Istanbul, Turkey.

METHODS

Fifty-five living-related kidney donors underwent nephrectomy and were retrospectively divided into two groups: 21 donors who underwent open nephrectomy (Group 1) and 34 donors who underwent transperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy (Group 2).

RESULTS

In comparison to the donors who underwent open nephrectomy, those who underwent transperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy had significantly shorter postoperative hospital stays (2.3 ± 0.2 versus 3.8 ± 0.8 days, P = 0.003), duration of urinary catheterization (1.2 ± 0.8 days versus 2.0 ± 0.7 days, P = 0.0001), operating times (210 ± 27 minutes versus 185 ± 24 minutes, P = 0.02), and less blood loss (86 ml versus 142 ml, P = 0.048). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups with regard to the estimated blood transfusion and warm ischemia time. The preoperative week, first postoperative week, and 1-month postoperative serum creatinine levels were comparable between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy can be safely performed at centers with expertise in laparoscopic surgery. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy has better outcomes than open donor nephrectomy in terms of length of hospital stay, duration of urinary catheterization, operating time, and blood loss.

Peri-Incisional Infiltration and Intraperitoneal Instillation of Local Anesthetic for Reducing Pain After Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind Control Trial

BACKGROUND

The analgesic efficacy of peri-incisional infiltration and intraperitoneal instillation of ropivacaine in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy has not been clearly established.

METHODS

This randomized, controlled, double-blind trial allocated living donors undergoing left-sided laparoscopic donor nephrectomy to one of the following 4 groups: peri-incisional normal saline (NS) and intraperitoneal NS (group A, n = 30), peri-incisional 0.375% ropivacaine and intraperitoneal NS (group B, n = 31), peri-incisional NS and intraperitoneal 0.15% ropivacaine (group C, n = 31), and peri-incisional 0.375% and intraperitoneal 0.15% ropivacaine (group D, n = 32). Pain status was assessed using the visual analog scale at rest and during coughing at 2, 12, 24, and 48 hours postoperatively. Patient-controlled analgesia and additional rescue analgesic consumption were calculated by conversion to an equivalent dosage of morphine. This study did not include prisoners or those individuals who were coerced or paid as study participants.

RESULTS

The patient demographics and perioperative outcomes, including operative time, blood loss, and incision length, were comparable between the groups. The pain scores and number of patients who experienced shoulder pain at all postoperative time points did not differ significantly among the 4 groups. Postoperative analgesic consumption was similar in all groups, and there was no difference in the length of hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

Peri-incisional infiltration and intraperitoneal instillation of ropivacaine did not reduce postoperative pain or analgetic consumption.

Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy: superior outcomes after completion of the learning curve

The use of robots in donor nephrectomy has increased in recent years. However, whether robot-assisted methods have better outcomes than traditional laparoscopic methods and how surgical experience influences these outcomes remains unclear. This meta-analysis compares the outcomes of robot-assisted donor nephrectomy (RADN) with those of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) and to investigate the effects of surgical experience on these outcomes. A systematic literature search was conducted in Medline (through PubMed) and Web of Science databases. Perioperative data were extracted for meta-analysis. To assess the impact of the learning curve, a subgroup analysis was performed to compare outcomes between inexperienced and experienced surgeons. Seventeen studies with 6970 donors were included. Blood loss was lower (mean difference [MD] = - 13.28, p < 0.01) and the warm ischemia time was shorter (MD = - 0.13, p < 0.05) in the LDN group than the RADN group. There were no significant differences in terms of conversion to open surgery, operation time, surgical complications, hospital stay, costs, and delayed graft function between the groups. Subgroup analysis revealed that operation time (MD = - 1.09, p < 0.01) and length of hospital stay (MD = - 1.54, p < 0.05) were shorter and the rate of conversion to open surgery (odds ratios [OR] = 0.14, p < 0.0001) and overall surgical complications (OR = 0.23, p < 0.05) were lower in experienced RADN surgeons than in experienced LDN surgeons. Surgical experience enhances the perioperative outcomes following RADN more than it does following LDN. This suggests that RADN could be the method of choice for living donor nephrectomy as soon as surgeons gain sufficient experience in robotic surgery.

Uterus Transplantation as a Surgical Innovation

Uterus transplantation (UTx) research has been introduced in several countries, with trials in Sweden and the United States producing successful outcomes. The growing interest in developing UTx trials in other countries, such as Spain, the Netherlands, Japan, and Australia, raises important questions regarding the ethics of surgical innovation research in the field of UTx. This paper examines the current state of UTx in the context of the surgical innovation paradigm and IDEAL framework and discusses the ethical challenges faced by those considering the introduction of new trials. We argue that UTx remains an experimental procedure at a relatively early stage of the IDEAL framework, especially in the context of de novo trials, where protocols are likely to deviate from those used previously and where researchers are likely to have limited experience of UTx. We conclude that countries considering the introduction of UTx trials should build on the strengths of the reported outcomes to consolidate the evidence base and shed light on the uncertainties of the procedure. Authorities responsible for the ethical governance of UTx trials are advised to draw on the ethical framework used in the oversight of surgical innovation.

MRI measurement of the effects of moderate and deep neuromuscular blockade on the abdominal working space during laparoscopic surgery, a clinical study

BACKGROUND

Conflicting data exist regarding the effects of deep neuromuscular blockade (NMB) on abdominal dimensions during laparoscopic procedures. We performed a clinical study to establish the influence of moderate and deep neuromuscular blockade (NMB) on the abdominal working space, measured by Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy with standard pressure (12 mmHg) pneumoperitoneum under sevoflurane anaesthesia.

METHODS

Ten patients were intraoperatively scanned three times in the lateral decubitus position, with pneumoperitoneum maintained by a mobile insufflator. The first scan without NMB (T1) was followed by scans with moderate (T2) and deep NMB (T3). The skin-sacral promontory (S-SP) distance was measured, and 3D pneumoperitoneum volumes were reconstructed.

RESULTS

The mean difference in the S-SP distance was -0.32 cm between T2 and T3 (95% CI -1.06 - 0.42 cm; p = 0.344) and + 2.1 cm between T1 and T2 (95% CI 0.81 - 3.39 cm; p = 0.006). The mean differences in pneumoperitoneum volume were 166 mL between T2 and T3 (95% CI, 5 - 327 mL; p = 0.044) and 108 mL between T1 and T2 (95% CI, -273 - 488 mL; p = 0.525). The pneumoperitoneum volume showed high inter-individual variability and no increase in three patients with a high volume at T1.

CONCLUSIONS

During laparoscopic surgery in the lateral decubitus position with standard pressure under sevoflurane anaesthesia, deep NMB did not increase the S-SP distance compared to moderate NMB. Moderate NMB increased the S-SP distance by a mean of 2.1 cm (15.2%) compared with no NMB. The mean pneumoperitoneum volume increased slightly from moderate to deep NMB, with high inter-individual variability.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT03287388.

Pneumoperitoneum and Acute Kidney Injury-An Integrative Clinical Concept Review

An increased intraabdominal pressure, particularly when occurring during periods of hemodynamic instability or fluid overload, is regarded as a major contributor to acute kidney injury (AKI) in intensive care units. During abdominal laparoscopic procedures, intraoperative insufflation pressures up to 15 mmHg are applied, to enable visualization and surgical manipulation but with the potential to compromise net renal perfusion. Despite the widely acknowledged renal arterial autoregulation, net arterial perfusion pressure is known to be narrow, and the effective renal medullary perfusion is disproportionately impacted by venous and lymphatic congestion. At present, the potential risk factors, mitigators and risk-stratification of AKI during surgical pneumoperitoneum formation received relatively limited attention among nephrologists and represent an opportunity to look beyond mere blood pressure and intake-output balances. Careful charting and reporting duration and extent of surgical pneumoperitoneum represents an opportunity for anesthesia teams to better communicate intraoperative factors affecting renal outcomes for the postoperative clinical teams. In this current article, the authors are integrating preclinical data and clinical experience to provide a better understanding to optimize renal perfusion during surgeries. Future studies should carefully consider intrabdominal insufflation pressure as a key variable when assessing outcomes and blood pressure goals in these settings.

The Non-Muscle-Splitting Mini-Incision Donor Nephrectomy Remains a Feasible Technique in the Laparoscopic Era of Living Kidney Donation

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) is the current gold standard in kidney donation. Mini-incision open donor nephrectomy (MINI) techniques have been used extensively but have become less popular. The aim of the present study was to compare the results and safety of a non-muscle-splitting MINI technique with the current gold standard of LDN. A single center retrospective cohort study of all living donor nephrectomies between 2011 and 2019 was used for the study. The primary outcome of this study was short term (<30 days) with Clavien–Dindo grade complications. Secondary outcomes included multivariable regression analysis of perioperative data. No differences in complication rates were observed between MINI and LDN and also after correction for known confounders. As expected, the operative time and first warm ischemia were significantly shorter in the MINI group and less blood loss was observed in the LDN group. Complications and conversion rate (LDN to open) among the LDN patients were in line with recent published meta-analyses. This study confirms the perioperative safety of living kidney donation in modern practice. Complication rates of both MINI and LDN procedures are limited and not different between procedures. In specific circumstances, the MINI procedure can still be considered a safe and feasible alternative for living kidney donation.

Recommendations for living donor kidney transplantation

This Guide for Living Donor Kidney Transplantation (LDKT) has been prepared with the sponsorship of the Spanish Society of Nephrology (SEN), the Spanish Transplant Society (SET), and the Spanish National Transplant Organization (ONT). It updates evidence to offer the best chronic renal failure treatment when a potential living donor is available. The core aim of this Guide is to supply clinicians who evaluate living donors and transplant recipients with the best decision-making tools, to optimise their outcomes. Moreover, the role of living donors in the current KT context should recover the level of importance it had until recently. To this end the new forms of incompatible HLA and/or ABO donation, as well as the paired donation which is possible in several hospitals with experience in LDKT, offer additional ways to treat renal patients with an incompatible donor. Good results in terms of patient and graft survival have expanded the range of circumstances under which living renal donors are accepted. Older donors are now accepted, as are others with factors that affect the decision, such as a borderline clinical history or alterations, which when evaluated may lead to an additional number of transplantations. This Guide does not forget that LDKT may lead to risk for the donor. Pre-donation evaluation has to centre on the problems which may arise over the short or long-term, and these have to be described to the potential donor so that they are able take them into account. Experience over recent years has led to progress in risk analysis, to protect donors' health. This aspect always has to be taken into account by LDKT programmes when evaluating potential donors. Finally, this Guide has been designed to aid decision-making, with recommendations and suggestions when uncertainties arise in pre-donation studies. Its overarching aim is to ensure that informed consent is based on high quality studies and information supplied to donors and recipients, offering the strongest possible guarantees.

A Prospective Study Comparing Quality of Life after Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy versus Open Donor Nephrectomy

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) has advantages over open donor nephrectomy (ODN), with less bleeding and pain, and earlier discharge. However, the quality of life (QOL) has not been compared between these techniques. All consecutive donors undergoing left LDN or ODN from 2013 to 2015 at our center were included. The donors' QOL was measured with the brief World Health Organization QOL (WHOQOL-BREF) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) questionnaires preoperatively and at 3 and 6 months postoperatively. Cosmesis was measured by the body image questionnaire, and patient satisfaction was scored on a verbal rating scale at 3 and 6 months. Of the 264 donors, 228 met the inclusion criteria (100 - LDN and 128 - ODN). The LDN group showed no difference in WHOQOL-BREF scores at 3 months, and significant improvements in the psychological and social domains at 6 months versus the baseline. The ODN group showed a significant decrease in the physical, psychological, and environmental domains at 3 and 6 months versus the baseline. Compared with the ODN group, the LDN group had better QOL scores at 3 and 6 months in all domains. The responses to the HADS questionnaire were similar between the groups at all time points. The mean body image, cosmesis, and satisfaction scores were significantly better in the LDN group. LDN minimized the negative effects of surgery on the donors' QOL, with improvements in the long-term psychological and social aspects versus the baseline. LDN was more cosmetic and was associated with higher satisfaction than ODN.

Predicting operation time and creating a difficulty scoring system in donor nephrectomy

BACKGROUND

To determine predictive formulas for operation time and surgical difficulty in laparoscopic living-donor kidney transplantation.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed data for 222 living donors aged > 20 years and recorded factors affecting operation time from patients' computed tomography images and medical records. We used the factors significantly affecting operation time to create a formula to predict operation time and designed a model to predict surgical difficulty based on the standardized partial regression coefficient, β. We also analyzed the relationship between surgical difficulty (high vs low) and operation time.

RESULTS

This study involved 111 pure retroperitoneal donor nephrectomies (PRDN) and 111 hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomies (HALDN). Patients' mean age was 55.7 years, and 59.5% were women; 5.0% underwent right nephrectomy, and 77.0% vs. 23.0% had single- vs. multiple renal arteries. The average estimated kidney graft weight was 160.0 g; actual average graft weight was 155.3 g. The following factors were significantly correlated with operation time in the regression analysis: number of renal arteries, Mayo adhesive probability (MAP) score, estimated kidney graft weight, right nephrectomy, and operation type (PRDN). These five factors were used to create the operation time prediction equation and difficulty scoring system. The multiple r2 value was 0.40 for the operation time prediction equation. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis of the difficulty scoring system revealed the following: sensitivity: 78.0%, specificity: 64.9%, and c-statistic: 0.76 (95% confidence interval: 0.70-0.83).

CONCLUSIONS

The equation to predict operation time and the surgical difficulty prediction model created in this study are easy to calculate and are accurate. Both may help in selecting an appropriately-skilled surgeon and in improving safety in living-donor kidney transplantation.

Predictive Factors Affecting the Success of Nephrectomy for the Treatment of Nephrogenic Hypertension: Multicenter Study

INTRODUCTION

The aim of our study is to evaluate the predictive factors affecting the success of treatment with nephrectomy in patients with poorly functioning kidney and nephrogenic hypertension.

METHODS

Data for patients who underwent nephrectomy with a diagnosis of nephrogenic hypertension in 3 centers between May 2010 and January 2020 were analyzed. In the postoperative period, if the blood pressure (BP) was below 140/90 mm Hg without medical treatment, it was accepted as complete response; if the arterial BP was below 140/90 mm Hg with medical treatment or less medication, it was accepted as partial response; and if BP did not decrease to normal values, it was accepted as unresponsive. Demographic characteristics, duration of hypertension, preoperative and postoperative BP values, and presence of metabolic syndrome were statistically evaluated.

RESULTS

Our study consisted of 91 patients with a mean preoperative hypertension duration of 23.3 ± 12.1 months. Among patients, 42 (46.2%) had complete response, 18 (19.8%) had partial response, and 31 (34.0%) had no response. Preoperative systolic and diastolic BP values were not effective on treatment success (p = 0.071, p = 0.973, respectively), but the increase in age and hypertension duration (p = 0.030 and p < 0.001, respectively) and the presence of metabolic syndrome (p = 0.002) significantly decreased the complete response rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative hypertension duration, advanced age, and presence of metabolic syndrome are predictive factors affecting the response to treatment in patients who undergo nephrectomy due to nephrogenic hypertension.

Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy in Living Donors with a History of Abdominal Surgery: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background

Hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN) is frequently performed in living kidney transplantation donors. This study investigated the efficacy and safety of HALDN for living donors with abdominal surgical histories.

Material/Methods

A total of 573 living kidney donors underwent donor nephrectomies for living donor kidney transplantation between January 2008 and May 2015. Eighteen donors underwent open donor nephrectomy and were excluded from analyses. Left HALDN was performed in 533 donors, including 44 donors with abdominal surgical histories and 489 donors without abdominal surgical histories. Right HALDN was performed in 22 donors, including 11 donors with abdominal surgical histories and 11 donors without abdominal surgical histories. Graft quality including the lengths of arteries, veins and ureters, time to initial urination, recipient complications, and recipient estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and operation quality including warm ischemic time, blood loss, operation duration, donor complications and donor eGFR, were compared between donors with and without abdominal surgical histories in the left and right HALDN groups.

Results

The metrics of graft and operation quality were similar between living kidney donors with and without a history of abdominal surgery who underwent left or right HALDN.

Conclusions

The efficacy and safety of HALDN were not impaired by abdominal surgical histories.

Comparison of Long-Term Outcomes of Standard and Transvaginal Kidney Extraction in Laparoscopic Living Donor Nephrectomy

Background: A limited number of publications are available in the literature regarding laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy with vaginal extraction (LLDN-VE) for kidney transplantation. The aim of this study was to compare long-term recipient outcomes of standard laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy (S-LLDN) and LLDN-VE. Methods: A total of 652 patients [119 LLDN-VE (18.3%) and 533 S-LLDN (81.7%)] were included in this retrospective cross-sectional study. The data related to donor and recipient demographics, surgical and anatomical characteristics, and recipient and graft status were retrieved and compared using nonparametric statistical methods. Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were applied to compute survival according to the surgical technique. Results: The mean follow-up duration was 73.0 ± 25.4 months for S-LLDN and 69.8 ± 20.4 months for LLDN-VE recipients. The main determinants of long-term outcomes were the serum creatinine (SCr) levels, death-censored graft survival, and recipient survival at the end of the post-op 5th year. LLDN-VE recipients' discharge SCr was found to be statistically lower (P = .049) than S-LLDN patients. Graft survival rates censored for death were 93.8% for the S-LLDN and 93.3% for the LLDN-VE recipients. Cox regression analysis showed significance for younger donor age (P = .010) with the application of 17 parameters, indicating better graft survival outcomes for kidney recipients with younger donors. Conclusions: Compared with the standard method, the long-term results of LLDN-VE are in accordance with or could even be more advantageous than S-LLDN in certain aspects. LLDN-VE appears to be a feasible, safe, and cosmetically superior approach with no negative postoperative sexual or morbid effects on the donor.

Pain expectancy, prevalence, severity, and patterns following donor nephrectomy: Findings from the KDOC Study

Postoperative pain is an outcome of importance to potential living kidney donors (LKDs). We prospectively characterized the prevalence, severity, and patterns of acute or chronic postoperative pain in 193 LKDs at six transplant programs. Three pain measurements were obtained from donors on postoperative Day (POD) 1, 3, 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 41, 49, and 56. The median pain rating total was highest on POD1 and declined from each assessment to the next until reaching a median pain-free score of 0 on POD49. In generalized linear mixed-model analysis, the mean pain score decreased at each pain assessment compared to the POD3 assessment. Pre-donation history of mood disorder (adjusted ratio of means [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 1.40 [0.99, 1.98]), reporting "severe" on any POD1 pain descriptors (adjusted ratio of means [95% CI]: 1.47 [1.12, 1.93]) and open nephrectomy (adjusted ratio of means [95% CI]: 2.61 [1.03, 6.62]) were associated with higher pain scores across time. Of the 179 LKDs who completed the final pain assessment, 74 (41%) met criteria for chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP), that is, any donation-related pain on POD56. Study findings have potential implications for LKD education, surgical consent, postdonation care, and outcome measurements.

Is a Retroaortic Vein a Risk Factor in Laparoscopic Living Donor Nephrectomy?

INTRODUCTION

In living donor transplantation choosing the right donor and donor side for laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is a challenging task in clinical practice. Knowledge about anomalies in renal blood supply are crucial to evaluate the feasibility of the operative procedure. Few data so far exist whether the existence of a retroaortic left renal vein has an impact on living kidney transplantation outcome for donor and recipient.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 221 patients who underwent laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy between 2011 and 2017 for existence of a retroaortic left renal vein. Clinical characteristics and operative outcomes for donors and recipients were analyzed.

RESULTS

221 patients underwent donor nephrectomy between 2011 and 2017; 11 patients (4.98%) showed the feature of a retroaortic left renal vein, and in 8 patients (72.7%) out of those 11 the left kidney was chosen for transplantation. Mean preoperative serum creatinine was 0.77 (0.49-0.98) mg/dL and 1.28 (0.97-1.64) mg/dL at discharge. In recipients mean serum creatinine preoperatively, after 1 week, 1 month,1 year, 2 and 3 years of follow-up was 10.36 (6.09-20.77) mg/dL, 1.71 (0.67-2.72), 1.33 (0.70-1.89), 1.31 (0.95-2.13), 1.31 (0.98-2.13) and 1.33 (1.03-1.84), respectively. Neither donors nor recipients suffered from any operative complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy of a left kidney with retroaortic renal vein is safe for the donor, without limitation in the outcome for the recipient.

Living Kidney Donor Evaluation

Long-term safety of living kidney donation (LKD), especially for young donors, has become a real matter of concern in the transplant community and may contribute to creating resistance to LKD. In this context, the criteria that govern living donor donations must live up to very demanding standards as well as adjust to this novel reality. In the first part, we review the existing guidelines published after 2010 and critically examine their recommendations to see how they do not necessarily lead to consistent and universal practices in the choice of specific thresholds for a parameter used to accept or reject a living donor candidate. In the second part, we present the emergence of a new paradigm for LKD developed in the 2017 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes guidelines with the introduction of an integrative risk-based approach. Finally, we focus on predonation renal function evaluation, a criteria that remain central in the selection process, and discuss several issues surrounding the donor candidate's glomerular filtration rate assessment.

Results of Pediatric Kidney Transplants in an 8-Year Period: A Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

Patient survival and quality of life is better after a kidney transplant compared with dialysis. In this retrospective study, we analyzed the results of pediatric kidney transplants in an 8-year period in our center.

METHODS

We reviewed the files of 166 children and adolescents who had undergone kidney transplants between 2008 and 2015 in our center. All the patients were younger than 18 years old and had been followed up for at least 2 years.

RESULTS

The transplanted kidneys were taken from live donors in 146 (88%) of the cases and from cadavers in 20 (12%) of the cases. They were procured from unrelated and related donors in 129 (90%) and 17 (10%) of the cases, respectively. Laparoscopic nephrectomy was done on 141 donors. The kidney vessels were anastomosed to the aorta, the common iliac, and the internal iliac in 3.6%, 56%, and 40.4% of cases, respectively. Preemptive kidney transplants were performed on 62 patients. The mean of patient survival was 124 ± 1.37 months. One- and five-year patient survival rates were 99% and 97%, respectively. The mean of graft survival was 118.29 ± 2.47 months. One- and five-year graft survival rates were 94% and 93%, respectively. Preemptive kidney transplants had a higher graft survival rate (P < .02).

CONCLUSION

Kidney transplant is a safe and feasible procedure in children and adolescents based on patient and graft survival outcomes. In our center, surgery complications led to kidney loss in very few cases.

Surgical outcomes after pediatric kidney transplantation at the University of Heidelberg

BACKGROUND

Kidney transplantation (KTx) is the treatment of choice for children with end-stage renal disease (ESRD).

OBJECTIVE

An update of 48 years of surgical experience with pediatric KTx (PKTx) is presented, and the results between recipients of organs from deceased donors (DDs) and living donors (LDs) are compared.

STUDY DESIGN

All patients younger than 18 years who underwent KTx between 1967 and 2015 were evaluated. Data from 540 PKTx operations (409 DD and 131 LD) were obtained from the transplant center database. Peri-operative data and graft and patient survival were analyzed in the DD and LD groups.

RESULTS

Fewer recipients in the LD group underwent dialysis before PKTx than those in the DD group (50.8% in LD vs. 94.9% in DD, P < 0.001). The mean duration of dialysis (DD: 798 ± 525 days vs. LD: 625 ± 650 days, P = 0.03), time on the waiting list (DD: 472 ± 435 days vs. LD: 120 ± 243 days, P < 0.001), cold ischemia time (CIT) (DD: 1206 ± 368 min vs. LD: 140 ± 63 min, P < 0.001), operation time, and hospital stay were lower in the LD group. Except for arterial stenosis, the rates of postoperative vascular and urological complications were not different between the two groups. The cumulative 25-year graft and patient survival rates were 46.4% and 84.1% in the DD group and 76.5% and 96.1% in the LD group, respectively.

DISCUSSION

PKTx is the treatment of choice for children with ESRD. Graft quality has a direct impact on KTx outcome and rate of graft failure. Better HLA compatibility and shorter CIT reduce the impairment of graft function after LD PKTx. In addition, Establishment of an interdisciplinary approach using an individualized risk assessment and prevention model can improve PKTx outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Compared with DD PKTx, LD PKTx has better graft survival associated with a shorter duration of preceding dialysis, waiting time, and CIT and seems to be more beneficial for children.

Comparison of early postoperative pain after partial tumour nephrectomy by flank, transabdominal or laparoscopic access

Aim

To explore whether the total pain experience differs after (partial) kidney tumour nephrectomies via flank, transabdominal or laparoscopic access.

Materials and methods

We analyzed retrospectively 107 patients with flank, 12 with transabdominal and 21 with laparoscopic interventions. For pain treatment, conventional analgesics (A) or intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (PCIA) or thoracic peridural analgesia (tPDA) were used. Self-reported pain was measured with a Visual Analogue Scale three times daily. The area under the curve (AUC) at rest (R) and during a standardized body movement (M) were calculated from the intervention till the end of the second T(0-2) and seventh postoperative day T(0-7), respectively.

Results

The median AUC for T(0-2) at R was more intense for laparoscopy (13) than for flank incision (A, 9) and approximately the same during M. For flank incisions (A), the median AUC at R rises from 9 for T(0-2) to 22 for T(0-7) and at M the median AUC increases from 18 to 37. In contrast, laparoscopy did not cause further pain after the second postoperative day. Furthermore, with flank incision for T(0-2), at R, tPDA was superior to A (median AUC: 5 versus 9, p = 0.02) and at M again tPDA (median AUC: 12) had a better pain-control as A (18) or even as PCIA (19, p = 0.005).

Conclusion

Laparoscopic nephrectomies cause a relatively intense mean cumulative pain for T(0-2) and a subsequent absence of pain. However, flank incisions went on to increased pain levels until the seventh postoperative day with tPDA as most effective therapy.

Effect of perioperative infusion of Dexmedetomidine combined with Sufentanil on quality of postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing laparoscopic nephrectomy: a CONSORT-prospective, randomized, controlled trial

Background

Postoperative pain is one of the most common symptoms after surgery, which brings physical discomfort to patients. In addition, it may cause a series of complications, and even affect the long-term quality of life. The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blinded, controlled trial is to investigate the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine combined with sufentanil to attenuate postoperative pain in patients after laparoscopic nephrectomy.

Methods

Ninety patients undergoing laparoscopic nephrectomy were randomized into three groups: the control (sufentanil 0.02 μg/kg/h, Group C), sufentanil plus low dose of dexmedetomidine (0.02 μg/kg/h each, Group D1), and sufentanil plus high dose of dexmedetomidine (0.04 μg/kg/h, Group D2). The patient-controlled analgesia was programmed to deliver a bolus dose of 0.5 ml, followed by an infusion of 2 ml/h and a lockout time of 10 min. The primary goal was to calculate the cumulative amount of self-administered sufentanil; the secondary goals were to estimate pain intensity using the numerical rating scale (NRS), level of sedation, the first bowel movement, concerning adverse effects as well as duration of postoperative hospital stay.

Results

The total consumption of sufentanil in group D1 and D2 were significantly lower than in group C during the first 8 h after surgery (P < 0.05), whereas there were no statistically significant differences (P > 0.05) between group D1 and D2. Compared with group C, the NRS scores at rest during first 8 h after surgery were significantly lower in group D1 (P < 0.05). The NRS scores, neither at rest nor with movement, show statistically significant differences between group D1 and D2 at each time point following surgery (P > 0.05). The time to first flatus was shorter in group D1 compared with the control group (P < 0.05). In addition, compared with group C, group D1 and D2 had a shorter time for first defecation (P < 0.05).

Conclusions

Dexmedetomidine combined with sufentanil showed better postoperative analgesia without adverse effects, as well as facilitated bowel movements for patients undergoing laparoscopic nephrectomy.

Trial registration

We registered this study in a Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR) centre on Dec 23 2015 and received the registration number: ChiCTR-IPR-15007628.

Hand-Assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy PERiumbilical versus Pfannenstiel incision and return to normal physical ACTivity (HAPERPACT): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Hand-assisted laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy (HALDN) using a periumbilical or Pfannenstiel incision was developed to improve donor outcome after a kidney transplant. The aim of this study was to investigate two methods of hand assistance and kidney removal during HALDN and their effect on the time it takes for the donor to return to normal physical activity.

Methods/design

This study was initiated in November 2017 and is expected to last for 2 years. To be eligible for the study, donors must be more than 20 years of age and must not be receiving permanent pain therapy. Only donors with a single artery and vein in the graft are being enrolled in this trial. Donors with infections or scars in the periumbilical or hypogastric area, bleeding disorders, chronic use of immunosuppressive agents, or active infection will be excluded. Donors will be randomly allocated to either a control arm (periumbilical incision) or an intervention arm (Pfannenstiel incision). The sample size was calculated as 26 organ donors in each group. The primary endpoint is the number of days it takes the donor to return to normal physical activity (up to 4 weeks after the operation). Secondary endpoints are intraoperative outcomes, including estimated blood loss, warm ischemia time, and duration of the operation. Postoperative pain will be assessed using the visual analog scale, rescue analgesic use, and peak expiratory flow rate. Length of hospital stay, physical activity score, time to return to work, donor satisfaction, cosmetic score, postoperative complications, and all-cause mortality in living donors will also be reported. Delayed graft function, primary non-function, serum creatinine levels, and glomerular filtration rate will also be assessed in the recipients after transplantation.

Discussion

This is the first randomized controlled trial to compare the time it takes the living donor to return to normal physical activity after HALDN using two different types of incision. The comprehensive findings of this study will help decide which nephrectomy procedure is best for living donors with regard to patient comfort and satisfaction as well as graft function in the recipient after transplantation.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03317184. Registered on 23 October 2017.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2775-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Considerations on the Factors Influencing Living Kidney Donors' Autonomous Decision-Making: A Systematic Literature Review

As outcomes of organ transplantation have improved with advances in medicine, managing medical ethics issues has become increasingly more important. Although a basic consensus has been formed on the respect of autonomy in decision-making by prospective donors regarding living kidney transplantation, concrete and practical measures at the clinical site are required to ensure donor autonomy. The aim of the study was to identify elements related to autonomy in the kidney donor decision-making process.

METHODS

We systematically collected relevant studies from multiple databases in and out of Japan and conducted qualitative and inductive analyses.

RESULTS

The identified elements were categorized into 12 subcategories and then regrouped into the following 4 categories based on the similarity of the contents: donor personality and values, inability to fully understand the implications of donation, possibility of direct pressure on donor's decision-making process, and donor's environment and situation.

DISCUSSION

The autonomy-related elements were highly diverse, including obvious pressure upon the donor and their values as well as influences from health care professionals. Some elements had room for change, such as the informed consent procedure, while some elements were unchangeable. Other elements were changeable by intervention, but discussion is required about the appropriateness of the intervention itself. Further, a classification of clinical approach was suggested by the development of an analytical framework using 2 axes of "site where the element arises" and "room for change" based on the practical viewpoint of clinical circumstances.

Hand-assisted living-donor nephrectomy: a retrospective comparison of two techniques

BACKGROUND

Living-donor nephrectomy (LDN) is challenging, as surgery is performed on healthy individuals. Minimally invasive techniques for LDN have become standard in most centers. Nevertheless, numerous techniques have been described with no consensus on which is the superior approach. Both hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic (HARS) and hand-assisted laparoscopic (HALS) LDNs are performed at Zurich University Hospital. The aim of this study was to compare these two surgical techniques in terms of donor outcome and graft function.

METHOD

Retrospective single-center analysis of 60 consecutive LDNs (HARS n = 30; HALS n = 30) from June 2010 to May 2012, including a one-year follow-up of the recipients.

RESULTS

There was no mortality in either group and little difference in the overall complication rates. Median warm ischemia time (WIT) was significantly shorter in the HARS group. The use of laxatives and the incidence of postoperative vomiting were significantly greater in the HALS group. There was no difference between right- and left-sided nephrectomies in terms of donor outcome and graft function.

CONCLUSIONS

Both techniques appear safe for both donors and donated organs. The HARS technique is associated with a shorter WIT and a reduced incidence of postoperative paralytic ileus. Therefore, we consider HARS LDN a valuable alternative to HALS LDN.

Robot-Assisted Transplant Surgery - Vision or Reality? A Comprehensive Review

Minimally invasive surgery is standard procedure for many operations. Further refinements include the introduction of robotic surgery which is still an emerging field especially in laparoscopic surgery. Since the successful introduction of the da Vinci Robotic Surgical System, the robotic approach in organ transplantation has become of great interest in both the live donor organ retrieval and the recipient operation. Robotic surgery for kidney, liver, and pancreas transplantation is feasible. Over 700 donor nephrectomies and 100 kidney transplantations have been performed already, and robotic surgery is standard in a small number of pioneer centers; however, larger series and most importantly randomized controlled trials for the highest evidence are needed. Longer warm ischemia time and higher costs limit these procedures at the moment.

Establishment of laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy in a porcine model: techniques and outcomes in 44 pigs

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy has replaced open donor nephrectomy in most patients due to numerous benefits. A live animal model is required to equip surgeons with the necessary skills to perform such a procedure with minimal risk of complications. The aim of this study was to establish the technique for laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy in a porcine (Sus scrofa) model.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was approved by the Animal Ethics Committee of the university. Forty-four pigs underwent laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. The left kidney was removed with a standardized four-port technique, with a small suprapubic incision to facilitate kidney delivery.

RESULTS

All 44 procedures were performed successfully, with no intraoperative complications or conversion to open surgery. There was no apparent damage to any of the kidney grafts. The mean surgical time was 118.3 (±20.7) minutes. There was a small, but statistically insignificant, decrease in surgical time throughout the duration of the study. Several subjects had minor variations in the anatomy of the renal vasculature.

CONCLUSIONS

This series has developed and proven a training model for laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in pigs. This training model will allow surgeons to develop laparoscopic proficiency in a live donor, to be used in conjunction with human cadaveric training.

KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors

The 2017 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors is intended to assist medical professionals who evaluate living kidney donor candidates and provide care before, during and after donation. The guideline development process followed the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach and guideline recommendations are based on systematic reviews of relevant studies that included critical appraisal of the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations. However, many recommendations, for which there was no evidence or no systematic search for evidence was undertaken by the Evidence Review Team, were issued as ungraded expert opinion recommendations. The guideline work group concluded that a comprehensive approach to risk assessment should replace decisions based on assessments of single risk factors in isolation. Original data analyses were undertaken to produce a "proof-in-concept" risk-prediction model for kidney failure to support a framework for quantitative risk assessment in the donor candidate evaluation and defensible shared decision making. This framework is grounded in the simultaneous consideration of each candidate's profile of demographic and health characteristics. The processes and framework for the donor candidate evaluation are presented, along with recommendations for optimal care before, during, and after donation. Limitations of the evidence are discussed, especially regarding the lack of definitive prospective studies and clinical outcome trials. Suggestions for future research, including the need for continued refinement of long-term risk prediction and novel approaches to estimating donation-attributable risks, are also provided.In citing this document, the following format should be used: Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Living Kidney Donor Work Group. KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors. Transplantation. 2017;101(Suppl 8S):S1-S109.

Deep neuromuscular blockade improves surgical conditions during low-pressure pneumoperitoneum laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

Background

Evidence indicates that low-pressure pneumoperitoneum (PNP) reduces postoperative pain and analgesic consumption. A lower insufflation pressure may hamper visibility and working space. The aim of the study is to investigate whether deep neuromuscular blockade (NMB) improves surgical conditions during low-pressure PNP.

Methods

This study was a blinded randomized controlled multicenter trial. 34 kidney donors scheduled for laparoscopic donor nephrectomy randomly received low-pressure PNP (6 mmHg) with either deep (PTC 1–5) or moderate NMB (TOF 0–1). In case of insufficient surgical conditions, the insufflation pressure was increased stepwise. Surgical conditions were rated by the Leiden-Surgical Rating Scale (L-SRS) ranging from 1 (extremely poor) to 5 (optimal).

Results

Mean surgical conditions were significantly better for patients allocated to a deep NMB (SRS 4.5 versus 4.0; p < 0.01). The final insufflation pressure was 7.7 mmHg in patients with deep NMB as compared to 9.1 mmHg with moderate NMB (p = 0.19). The cumulative opiate consumption during the first 48 h was significantly lower in patients receiving deep NMB, while postoperative pain scores were similar. In four patients allocated to a moderate NMB, a significant intraoperative complication occurred, and in two of these patients a conversion to an open procedure was required.

Conclusions

Our data show that deep NMB facilitates the use of low-pressure PNP during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy by improving the quality of the surgical field. The relatively high incidence of intraoperative complications indicates that the use of low pressure with moderate NMB may compromise safety during LDN. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT 02602964.

Minimally Invasive, Laparoscopic, and Robotic-assisted Techniques Versus Open Techniques for Kidney Transplant Recipients: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Literature on conventional and minimally invasive operative techniques has not been systematically reviewed for kidney transplant recipients.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically evaluate, summarize, and review evidence supporting operating technique and postoperative outcome for kidney transplant recipients.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic review was conducted in PubMed-Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library between 1966 up to September 1, 2016, according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis guidelines. Articles were included and scored by two independent reviewers using Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE), Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS), and Oxford guidelines for level of evidence. Main outcomes were graft survival, surgical site infection, incisional hernia, and cosmetic result. In total, 18 out of 1954 identified publications were included in this analysis.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Included reports described conventional open, minimally invasive open, laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted techniques. General level of evidence of included studies was low (GRADE: 1-3; NOS: 0-4; and Oxford level of evidence: 4-2). No differences in graft or patient survival were found. For open techniques, Gibson incision showed better results than the hockey-stick incision for incisional hernia (4% vs 16%), abdominal wall relaxation (8% vs 24%), and cosmesis. Minimally invasive operative recipient techniques showed lowest surgical site infection (range 0-8%) and incisional hernia rates (range 0-6%) with improved cosmetic result and postoperative recovery. Disadvantages included prolonged cold ischemia time, warm ischemia time, and total operation time.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the level of evidence was generally low, minimally invasive techniques showed promising results with regard to complications and recovery, and could be considered for use. For open surgery, the smallest possible Gibson incision appeared to yield favorable results.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In this paper, the available evidence for minimally invasive operation techniques for kidney transplantation was reviewed. The quality of the reviewed research was generally low but suggested possible advantages for minimally invasive, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted techniques.

Back-to-back comparison of mini-open vs. laparoscopic technique for living kidney donation

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy is the standard of care at high-volume renal transplant centres, with benefits over the open approach well-documented in the literature. Herein, we present a retrospective analysis of our single-institution donor nephrectomy series comparing the mini-open donor nephrectomy (mini-ODN) to the laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) with regards to operative, donor, and recipient outcomes.

METHODS

From 2007-2011, there were 89 cases of mini-ODN, at which point our centre transitioned to LDN; 94 cases were performed from 2011-2014. In total, 366 patients were reviewed, including donor and recipient pairs. Donor and recipient demographics, intraoperative data, postoperative donor recovery, recipient graft outcomes, and financial cost were assessed comparing the surgical approaches.

RESULTS

We demonstrate a reduced estimated blood loss (347.83 vs. 90.3 cc), lower intraoperative complication rate (4 vs. 11) and shorter length of hospital stay (2.4 vs. 3.3 days) for patients in the LDN group. Operative time was significantly longer for the LDN group (108.4 vs. 165.9 minutes), although this did not translate to a longer warm ischemia time (mean 2.0 minutes for each group). The rate of delayed graft function and recipient 12-month creatinine were comparable for ODN and LND. Overall cost of LDN was $684 higher for an uncomplicated admission.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a longer surgical time and higher upfront cost, our study supports that LDN yields several advantages over the mini-ODN, with a lower estimated blood loss, fewer intraoperative complications, and shorter length of hospital stay, all while maintaining excellent renal allograft outcomes.

Living Donor Hepatectomy: Is it Safe?

Living donor hepatectomy (LDH) is high risk to a healthy donor and remains controversial. Living donor nephrectomy (LDN), conversely, is a common practice. The objective is to examine the outcomes of LDH and compare this risk profile to LDN. The Nationwide Inpatient Sample was queried for hepatectomies and nephrectomies from 1998 to 2011. LDH or LDN were identified by donor ICD-9 codes. Outcomes included in-hospital mortality and complications. Bivariate analysis compared nondonor hepatectomy or nondonor nephrectomy (NDN). Multivariate analyses adjusted for baseline organ disease, malignancy, or benign lesions. There were 430 LDH and 9211 nondonor hepatectomy. In-hospital mortality was 0 and 6 per cent, respectively ( P < 0.001); complications 4 and 33 per cent ( P < 0.001). LDH had fewer complications [odds ratio (OR) 0.15 (0.08–0.26)]. There were 15,631 LDN and 117,966 NDN. Mortality rates were 0.8 per cent LDN and 1.8 per cent NDN ( P < 0.001). Complications were 1 and 21 per cent ( P < 0.001). LDN had fewer complications [OR 0.06 (0.05–0.08)] and better survival [OR 0.32 (0.18–0.58)]. Complication rates were higher in LDH than LDN (4% vs 1%, P < 0.001), but survival was similar (0% vs 0.8% mortality, P = 0.06). In conclusion, morbidity and mortality rates of LDH are significantly lower than hepatectomy for other disease. This study suggests that the risk profile of LDH is comparable with the widely accepted LDN.

Technical aspects for live-donor organ procurement for liver, kidney, pancreas, and intestine

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article reviews current strategies for living-donor organ procurement in liver, kidney, pancreas, and intestinal transplant.

RECENT FINDINGS

Here we summarize current open and laparoscopic approaches to living donation of abdominal organs.

SUMMARY

Living donation strategies expand the organ pool in the setting of a significant organ shortage.