Right versus left retroperitoneoscopic living-donor nephrectomy

The Differences Between the Right and Left Side Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy Outcomes: A Comparative Analysis of Single-Center Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the right and left side laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) outcomes of a single center.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The outcomes of patients who underwent LDN in our clinic between 2008 and 2020 were evaluated retrospectively. Two groups were consisted according to the side of the donor kidney. The gender, age, body mass index, duration of operation, amount of bleeding, warm ischemia time, drain removal time, and duration of hospitalization and complications were compared between groups.

RESULTS

A total of 314 patients were included in the study. Sixty-six patients underwent right LDN and 248 underwent left LDN. There was no difference between groups in terms of age, duration of operation, amount of bleeding, warm ischemia time, and complications (p>0.05). However, drain removal time and duration of hospitalization were longer in the left LDN group (p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The right LDN had similar intraoperative outcomes with the left LDN. However, failure on meticulous dissection of the lymphatic structures during left LDN might cause chylous drainage and prolonged hospitalization time.

Comparing outcomes in right versus left kidney transplantation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Transplantation of right kidneys can pose technical challenges due to the short right renal vein. Whether this results in inferior outcomes remains controversial.

METHOD

Healthcare Database Advanced Search (HDAS) was used to identify relevant studies. Two authors independently reviewed each study. Statistical analyses were performed using random effects models and results expressed as HR or relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals. Subgroup analyses were performed in kidneys from deceased donors (DD) and living donors (LD).

RESULTS

A total of 35 studies (257,429 participants) were identified. Both deceased and living donor right kidneys were at increased risk of delayed graft function (DGF; RR = 1.12[1.06-1.18] and RR = 1.33[1.21-1.46] respectively; both p < .0001). In absolute terms, for each 100 kidney pairs of DD kidneys transplanted there are 2.72 (1.67-3.78, p < .00001) excess episodes of DGF in right kidneys. Graft thromboses and graft loss due to technical failure was also significantly more likely in right kidneys, in both DD and LD settings. There was no evidence that laterality alters long term graft survival in LD or DD.

CONCLUSION

Right kidneys have inferior early outcomes, with higher rates of DGF, technical failure and graft thrombosis. However, these differences are small in absolute terms, and long-term graft survival is equivalent.

Right Kidney Mini-Invasive Living Donor Nephrectomy: A Safe and Efficient Alternative

INTRODUCTION

Right kidney living donor transplantation is considered more difficult and associated with more complications. The objective was to evaluate donor safety and graft function of right hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN).

METHODS

A total of 270 consecutive HALDN procedures have been performed in our institution up to April 2017. We retrospectively compared the outcomes of right-sided nephrectomy (R-HALDN) to left-sided nephrectomy (L-HALDN) to evaluate donor safety and graft function of R-HALDN.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven right kidneys were removed for functional asymmetry in favour of left kidney (35/67) or left kidney multiple arteries (28/67). Among the donors, neither conversion to open surgery nor preoperative blood transfusion was necessary. There was no significant difference in operative time, compared to L-HALDN group (170 ± 37 min vs. 171 ± 32 min; p value = 0.182). Warm ischaemia time was significantly longer for R-HALDN (4.0 ± 1.6 min vs. 3.0 ± 1.7 min; p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in terms of post-operative complications and serum Cr levels. Among the recipients, there were no graft venous thrombosis. There was no significant difference in delayed graft function (3 for R-HALDN group and 8 for L-HALDN group; p value = 0.847), serum Cr levels, and graft survival.

CONCLUSION

R-HALDN is a safe procedure for kidney donors, with excellent graft function for the recipients, compared to L-HALDN.

Strategies to Perform Pure Retroperitoneoscopic Donor Nephrectomy: A Single-Center Cohort Study

Background: Considering the increase in a number of vascular complications, right laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is less preferred due to achieving not only shorter renal vein but also longer renal artery. However, recent studies have indicated that the side of the surgery would not affect the outcomes. Aim: The aim of this study is to evaluate the outcomes and strategies to increase the safety of pure retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy (RDN). Methods: We analyzed the prospectively collected medical records of 158 kidney donors who underwent RDN from January 2010 to August 2018. The patients were divided into two groups based on their side of surgery. Right- and left-sided RDNs were compared in terms of demographics, intraoperative, and postoperative data, including the development of incisional hernia (IH). The outcomes of the recipients were also evaluated. Results: Right RDN was performed in 40 (25.3%) and left RDN was performed in 118 (74.7%) donors. Operation time (P = .593), warm ischemia time (P = .271), blood loss (P = .787), and length of hospital stay (P = .908) were statistically similar in right and left RDN groups. Intraoperative and postoperative complications were statistically showed no difference between right and left RDNs. No IH was observed in any group. One-year and five-year patient survival and graft survival rates were 100% versus 97% (P = .299) and 100% versus 95% (P = .126) on both sides, respectively. Conclusion: Right RDN is an effective and safe method as on the left side. RDN has an additional advantage in the absence of IH. Experience with other retroperitoneoscopic urological interventions may have had a positive effect on the outcomes of pure RDN.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy in a high risk overweight donor with left-sided IVC, and previous abdominal surgery

•

Surgical planning based on preoperative CTA is necessary in patients with vascular anomalies in order to avoid complications.

•

Intrabdominal adhesions are common in patients with previous abdominal surgery and can affect the surgical approach for donor nephrectomy.

•

Considering the extension of the donor eligibility criteria, it is expected to see cases with congenital vascular anomalies.

Introduction

The extension of donor eligibility criteria represents one of the possible ways to increase the organ shortage, thus decreasing the waiting time for kidney transplantation. Expectedly, this strategy is associated with a growing number of more technically demanding living donor nephrectomy procedures requiring careful assessment, and sound surgical experience in order to avoid intraoperative complications.

Case presentation

After a thorough evaluation through preoperative imaging, we performed a hand-assisted left laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy in a 56 year-old overweight patient with history of prior abdominal surgery, harboring a left-sided inferior vena cava (IVC).

Discussion/conclusion

This case describes our comprehensive approach in this complex surgical scenario to preserve donor safety and provide an optimal kidney graft.

Feasibility and safety of laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy in case of right kidney and multiple-renal artery kidney: a systematic review of the literature

PURPOSE

To access the current status of the security and feasibility of right kidney (RK) and multiple-renal artery (MRA) laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy (LLDN) which are more challenging compared to left kidney (LK) and single renal artery (SRA) because of a shorter renal vein and more complex vascular anatomy.

METHODS

We did a systematic review of the literature according to the PRISMA recommendations, reporting RK or MRA donor nephrectomy performed with a laparoscopic technique compared to LK or SRA kidney LLDN. The identified and analyzed primary outcomes of interest were operating time (OT), warm ischemia time (WIT), rate of conversion and transfusion, donor length of stay (LOS), delayed graft function (DGF) and rate of graft loss (GL).

RESULTS

16 comparative studies (1397 cases) of RK-LLDN and 12 comparative studies including 15 series (993 cases) of MRA-LLDN were selected. For RK-LLDN review, conversion rate was 0.8% and blood transfusion rate 0.2%, only one case of graft venous thrombosis was reported, OT was shorter in four studies and there was no any difference of DGF and GL rate compared to LK-LLDN. For MRA-LLDN review, conversion rate was 1.3% and blood transfusion rate 1.1%, OT and WIT were longer compared to SRA-LLDN, there were more ureteral complications in two studies, and no difference in terms of vascular complications and graft loss rate.

CONCLUSION

RK-LLDN and MRA-LLDN would be similar to LK-LLDN and SRA-LLDN in terms of feasibility and safety for the donor as well as graft function results for RK-LLDN.

Right Living Donor Nephrectomies: Retroperitoneoscopic vs Laparoscopic Transperitoneal Approach

Retroperitoneoscopic right living donor nephrectomy (RLDN) provides direct access to the renal hilum without the need to mobilize the colon. However, factors such as lack of anatomic landmarks to guide orientation, smaller working space, and steep learning curve provided a debate against this approach. In this retrospective study, we reviewed our single-center experience of retroperitoneoscopic RLDN.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between January 2015 and January 2017, 10 patients underwent retroperitoneoscopic RLDN by a single surgeon at the National University Hospital, Singapore. Baseline demographics, intraoperative parameters, and both donor and recipient outcomes were retrieved from the database.

RESULTS

Mean (SD) age was 52.7 (13.8) years, mean (SD) body mass index was 25.2 (2.9) kg/m², mean (SD) operating time was 196.8 (38.0) minutes, mean (SD) warm ischemic time was 5.1 (2.1) minutes, and mean (SD) blood loss was 43 (25.0) mL. Mean (SD) renal vein length was 10 (2.5) mm, and mean (SD) renal artery length was 6 (1.8 mm). One patient had to be converted to laparoscopic transperitoneal nephrectomy. No donors developed complications. Mean (SD) hospital stay was 3.5 (1.1) days. All transplanted right kidneys had immediate graft function with no complications. Mean (SD) serum creatinine (at 1 year) was 103.6 (20.3) μmol/L. There is no graft loss among the recipient after 1 year.

CONCLUSIONS

Right donor nephrectomy can be performed safely using retroperitoneoscopic approach. Retroperitoneoscopy offers advantages, especially in a patient who previously had transabdominal surgery or high body mass index. However, transperitoneal approach may be preferable in anomalous situations because it provides instinctive orientation from anatomic landmarks and a greater working space.

Transition from laparoscopic to retroperitoneoscopic approach for live donor nephrectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy has become the standard of care due to multiple benefits. Currently, there are various techniques employed with two different approaches: transperitoneal (TLDN) or retroperitoneoscopic (RLDN) approach. There is a lack of data to determine which technique is superior, although the RLDN offers an anatomical advantage by avoidance of manipulation of the intraperitoneal organs. The aims of this study were to explore the merits of RLDN to TLDN and assess the learning curve of transition from TLDN to RLDN.

METHODS

From January 2010 to February 2017, 106 live donor nephrectomies were performed: 56 by TLDN and 50 by RLDN. Data on patient demographics, perioperative parameters, analgesic consumption, pain scores, and kidney graft function were collected and analysed. Data were compared with a Student's t test or Mann-Whitney test. A CUSUM analysis was performed to investigate the learning curve.

RESULTS

All live donor nephrectomies were successful with no conversion to open surgery. There was no blood transfusion, readmission, or mortality. No postoperative complications were graded over Clavien II. Kidney function was comparable in both groups. The follow-up period ranged from 3 to 78 months.

CONCLUSION

Retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy is a safe approach with comparable results to TLDN. RLDN has an anatomical advantage as it avoids manipulating the intraperitoneal organs and retains a virgin abdomen and hence translates to a lower perioperative complication risk.

Perioperative Events and Complications in Minimally Invasive Live Donor Nephrectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive live donor nephrectomy has become a fully implemented and accepted procedure. Donors have to be well educated about all risks and details during the informed consent process. For this to be successful, more information regarding short-term outcome is necessary.

METHODS

A literature search was performed; all studies discussing short-term complications after minimally invasive live donor nephrectomy were included. Outcomes evaluated were intraoperative and postoperative complications, conversions, operative and warm ischemia times, blood loss, length of hospital stay, pain score, convalescence, quality of life, and costs.

RESULTS

One hundred ninety articles were included in the systematic review, 41 in the meta-analysis. Conversion rate was 1.1%. Intraoperative complication rate was 2.3%, mainly bleeding (1.5%). Postoperative complications occurred in 7.3% of donors, including infectious complications (2.6%), of which mainly wound infection (1.6%) and bleeding (1.0%). Reported mortality rate was 0.01%. All minimally invasive techniques were comparable with regard to complication or conversion rate.

CONCLUSIONS

The used techniques for minimally invasive live donor nephrectomy are safe and associated with low complication rates and minimal risk of mortality. These data may be helpful to develop a standardized, donor-tailored informed consent procedure for live donor nephrectomy.

Buprenorphine Maintenance for Opioid Dependence in Public Sector Healthcare: Benefits and Barriers

BACKGROUND

Since its U.S. FDA approval in 2002, buprenorphine has been available for maintenance treatment of opiate dependence in primary care physicians' offices. Though buprenorphine was intended to facilitate access to treatment, disparities in utilization have emerged; while buprenorphine treatment is widely used in private care setting, public healthcare integration of buprenorphine lags behind.

RESULTS

Through a review of the literature, we found that U.S. disparities are partly due to a shortage of certified prescribers, concern of patient diversion, as well as economic and institutional barriers. Disparity of buprenorphine treatment dissemination is concerning since buprenorphine treatment has specific characteristics that are especially suited for low-income patient population in public sector healthcare such as flexible dosing schedules, ease of concurrently treating co-morbidities such as HIV and hepatitis C, positive patient attitudes towards treatment, and the potential of reducing addiction treatment stigma.

CONCLUSION

As the gap between buprenorphine treatment in public sector settings and private sector settings persists in the U.S., current research suggests ways to facilitate its dissemination.