Living-donor kidney transplantation: comparison of sequential and simultaneous surgical organizations

Role of Renal Venous Oxygen Pressure for Renal Function Monitoring After Related Living-Donor Kidney Transplantation: Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Monitoring of renal function after kidney transplantation (KT) is performed by measuring serum creatinine (SCr), urine volumes (UV), and glomerular filtration rate (GFR). Other methods based on oxygen metabolism, such as the renal venous oxygen pressure (PrvO2), may be useful. The aim of this study was to explore the correlation between PrvO2 and SCr, UV, and GFR 5 days after KT (SCr5, UV5, and GFR5, respectively).

METHODS

We conducted a prospective cohort study in adults scheduled for living donor KT. A venous blood sample was taken from the renal vein after declamping the renal artery, and blood gas determinations were made. Correlation analyses between PrvO2 and SCr5, UV5, and GFR5 were done by calculating Spearman's correlation coefficient with generalized linear models (GLM). A Spearman's correlation analysis was performed between the percentage decrease in SCr (%ΔSCr) and PrvO2. A GLM was also performed to determine the association of PrvO2 with slow graft function (SGF).

RESULTS

The study included 42 patients, of whom 67% were men. The median age was 31 years (IQR, 27-43.5). PrvO2 was negatively correlated with SCr5 (ρ = -0.53, P = .003), and positively correlated with GFR5 (ρ = 0.49, P = .001) and %ΔSCr (ρ = 0.47, P = .002). A higher PrvO2 was associated with an increase in GFR in univariable (β = 1.24, 95% CI, 0.56-1.93, P = .001) and multivariable (β = 1.24, 95% CI, 0.53-1.94, P = .001) analyses. No association was found between PrvO2 and SGF.

CONCLUSION

PrvO2 could be used to monitor renal function in the first 5 days after related living-donor KT, given its good correlation with SCr and GFR.

[Living-donor robotic-assisted kidney transplantation: French academic center experience]

INTRODUCTION

The main objective was to report the intra-, post-operative and functional outcomes of living-donor robotic-assisted kidney transplantation (RAKT), performed by a surgeon skilled in robotic surgery. The secondary objective was to compare the results of RAKT, based on the surgeon's experience.

METHODS

For this retrospective cohort study, we analyzed data from consecutive patients who underwent living-donor RAKT from July 2015 to March 2020 and compared the results of RAKT according to the surgeon's experience (group 1: 1-14th RAKT versus group 2: 15-29th RAKT).

RESULTS

Twenty-nine living-donor RAKT were performed. The median age and BMI of the recipients were: 57.0 (44.0-66.0) years and 32.7 (23.5-39.6)kg/m². The median overall operative time and median console time were: 140.0 (122.5-165.0) and 120.0 (107.5-137.5) minutes. The median rewarming time, arterial, venous and urinary anastomoses durations were: 35.0 (27.5-45.0), 15.0 (11.0-20.0), 12.0 (10.0-16.0), 20.0 (16.0-23.0) minutes. Two (6.9%) minor and 5 (17.2%) major (Clavien-Dindo≥III) postoperative complications occurred. At 2 years of follow-up, patient and transplant survival was 100% (n=29) and 93.1% (n=27). After the 14th RAKT, the rewarming time (P=0.01) and venous anastomosis duration (P=0.004) were statistically shorter.

CONCLUSION

Living-donor robotic-assisted kidney transplantation, performed by a surgeon skilled robotic surgery, ensures good functional results in the medium term.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Outcomes and surgical complications following living-donor renal transplantation using kidneys retrieved with trans-peritoneal or retro-peritoneal hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy

The best minimally invasive procedure for living-donor kidney retrieval remains debated. Our objective was to assess trans-peritoneal (TP) and retro-peritoneal (RP) hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN). In this single-center retrospective study, we analyzed results from 317 living-donor renal transplants (RT) performed between 2008 and 2016. Donor and recipient outcomes were compared between TP-HALDN (n = 235) and RP-HALDN (n = 82). Conversion to open nephrectomy (0.4% vs 0%; P = 1.000), intra-operative complications (1.7% vs 1.2%; P = 1.000), and 1-year overall post-operative complications (11.9% vs 17.1%; P = .258) rates were similar in TP-HALDN and RP-HALDN. Overall surgical site infections were higher in RP-HALDN (6.1% vs 1.7%; P = .053), whereas incisional hernias were only recorded following TP-HALDN (3.4% vs 0%; P = .118). The duration of the procedure was 11-minute shorter for TP-HALDN than RP-HALDN (P < .001) but extraction time was equivalent (2, IQR 1.5-2.5 minutes; P = 1.000). RT following TP-HALDN and RP-HALDN showed comparable one-year death-censored allograft survival (97% vs 98.8%; P = .685), primary non-function (0.4% vs 0%; P = .290), delayed graft function (1.3% vs 4.9%; P = .077), and urological complications (2.6% vs 4.9%; P = .290) rates. In our series, donor and recipient outcomes were not substantially affected by the approach used for donor nephrectomy. TP-HALDN and RP-HALDN were both safe and effective.