Laparoscopic and hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Relationship between surgical difficulty and postoperative complications of hand-assisted laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy and establishment of prediction model

BACKGROUND

Few studies have systematically explored the factors influencing the difficulty of hand-assisted laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy. To investigate the relationship between the difficulty of hand-assisted laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy and postoperative complications of the donor as well as the recipient, and then build a model for predicting the difficulty of surgery.

METHODS

In this study, 60 patients who underwent hand-assisted laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy by the same surgeon from September 2022 to March 2024 were included as the modeling group. 20 patients operated on by another surgeon served as the external validation group. The subjective score (1-3 points) of surgical difficulty was used as the quantitative index of surgical difficulty. Pearson and Spearman correlation tests were used to explore the correlation between preoperative data and surgical difficulty scores of kidney donors, and finally built a prediction model through multiple linear regression analysis.

RESULTS

With the increase in the difficulty of operation, both donors and recipients' complications were increased. Linear regression analysis showed that only the number of renal arteries, visceral fat thickness and MAP score were independent risk factors for the difficulty of hand-assisted laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy. The prediction equation is as follows: Difficulty score = 0.584*Number of renal arteries + 0.731*MAP score + 0.110*visceral fat thickness.

CONCLUSIONS

Donors with higher surgical difficulty are more likely to have serious complications after surgery as well as the recipient. We also established a reliable prediction model for the difficulty of hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.

Robotic-Assisted Nephrectomy for Living Kidney Donation-Single Center Initial Experience (Case Series) and Review of the Literature

Background: Robotic-assisted nephrectomy for living kidney-donation (RANLD) has the potential of becoming the leading technique of harvesting kidney, if expertise is available. The aim of this work is to present our initial experience with robotic technique with additional hand-assistance. Materials and Methods: We initiated RANLD at our clinic using the DaVinci System in September 2022, since then harvesting six kidneys, four left and two right; in two cases, multiple arteries existed. The renal vessels were ligated using vascular staplers. All the operations included a hand-assist with the use of Gelport. The mean operation time was 119.2 min (SD 12 min). Results: There were no conversions or donors' post-operative complications. Time of discharge from the hospital was 4.5 days post-operatively. Total hospital length of stay was 7.8 days. All the harvested kidneys were transplanted, five of them with adequate function, three with initially delayed function, and one needed to be removed due to thrombotic complications. Post-operative was pain assessed on the VAS scale and overall pain was assessed according to the NRS scale. At the discharge day, donors' performance status was about 87.5% according to the Karnofsky scale. The donors resumed their normal life activity within 15.7 days and returned to work within 45.2 days. The serum mean creatinine level before the donation was 0.85 mg/dL (SD 0.1 mg/dL), and mean eGFR (MDRD) = 91.8 mL/min/1.73 m2 (SD 16.1 mL/min/1.73 m2). Conclusions: Further development of RANLD could lead to an increase in the number of living kidney donors, particularly in Poland where the number is currently lower than that of deceased donors. Prolonged operation time, longer warm ischemic time, and high equipment costs are significant drawbacks of RANLD.

Knowledge, attitude, and practice toward postoperative self-management among kidney transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Patient involvement is crucial to the success of kidney transplants. This study aimed to investigate the knowledge, attitude, and practice (KAP) toward postoperative self-management among kidney transplant recipients.

METHODS

A web-based cross-sectional study was conducted in Ruijin Hospital (Shanghai, China) between March 24, 2023, and April 15, 2023 in kidney transplant recipients. A questionnaire was designed to collect data about the characteristics of the participants and their KAP toward postoperative self-management. KAP scores were calculated based on participants' responses, using predefined scoring criteria tailored to evaluate each dimension of KAP effectively.

RESULTS

A total of 483 valid questionnaires were collected, including 189 (39.13%) participants aged between 46 and 60 years. The mean score of knowledge, attitude and practice were 23.44 ± 4.87 (possible range: 0-28), 43.59 ± 2.65 (possible range: 10-50), 52.52 ± 4.64 (possible range: 0-58), respectively. The multivariate analysis showed knowledge scores (OR = 1.15, 95% CI = 1.10-1.20, p < 0.001), attitude scores (OR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.12-1.32, p < 0.001) and undergone transplantation within 1 year (OR = 3.92, 95% CI = 1.60-9.63, p = 0.003) were independently associated with good practice. Knowledge scores (OR = 1.06, 95% CI = 1.02-1.10, p = 0.003), attitude scores (OR = 1.16, 95% CI = 1.08-1.25, p < 0.001), aged 16-35 years (OR = 0.38, 95% CI = 0.18-0.78, p = 0.009), underwent a single kidney transplant surgery (OR = 3.97, 95% CI = 1.28-12.38, p = 0.017) were independently associated with medication adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

Kidney transplant recipients had good knowledge, positive attitude and good practice toward postoperative self-management. Implementing personalized education, psychological support, and close monitoring strategies is recommended to optimize postoperative self-management in kidney transplant recipients.

Robotic versus laparoscopic versus open nephrectomy for live kidney donors

BACKGROUND

Waiting lists for kidney transplantation continue to grow. Live kidney donation significantly reduces waiting times and improves long-term outcomes for recipients. Major disincentives to potential kidney donors are the pain and morbidity associated with surgery. This is an update of a review published in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of open donor nephrectomy (ODN), laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN), hand-assisted LDN (HALDN) and robotic donor nephrectomy (RDN) as appropriate surgical techniques for live kidney donors.

SEARCH METHODS

We contacted the Information Specialist and searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 31 March 2024 using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LDN with ODN, HALDN, or RDN were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts for eligibility, assessed study quality, and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information where necessary. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen studies randomising 1280 live kidney donors to ODN, LDN, HALDN, or RDN were included. All studies were assessed as having a low or unclear risk of bias for selection bias. Five studies had a high risk of bias for blinding. Seven studies randomised 815 live kidney donors to LDN or ODN. LDN was associated with reduced analgesia use (high certainty evidence) and shorter hospital stay, a longer procedure and longer warm ischaemia time (moderate certainty evidence). There were no overall differences in blood loss, perioperative complications, or need for operations (low or very low certainty evidence). Three studies randomised 270 live kidney donors to LDN or HALDN. There were no differences between HALDN and LDN for analgesia requirement, hospital stay (high certainty evidence), duration of procedure (moderate certainty evidence), blood loss, perioperative complications, or reoperations (low certainty evidence). The evidence for warm ischaemia time was very uncertain due to high heterogeneity. One study randomised 50 live kidney donors to retroperitoneal ODN or HALDN and reported less pain and analgesia requirements with ODN. It found decreased blood loss and duration of the procedure with HALDN. No differences were found in perioperative complications, reoperations, hospital stay, or primary warm ischaemia time. One study randomised 45 live kidney donors to LDN or RDN and reported a longer warm ischaemia time with RDN but no differences in analgesia requirement, duration of procedure, blood loss, perioperative complications, reoperations, or hospital stay. One study randomised 100 live kidney donors to two variations of LDN and reported no differences in hospital stay, duration of procedure, conversion rates, primary warm ischaemia times, or complications (not meta-analysed). The conversion rates to ODN were 6/587 (1.02%) in LDN, 1/160 (0.63%) in HALDN, and 0/15 in RDN. Graft outcomes were rarely or selectively reported across the studies. There were no differences between LDN and ODN for early graft loss, delayed graft function, acute rejection, ureteric complications, kidney function or one-year graft loss. In a meta-regression analysis between LDN and ODN, moderate certainty evidence on procedure duration changed significantly in favour of LDN over time (yearly reduction = 7.12 min, 95% CI 2.56 to 11.67; P = 0.0022). Differences in very low certainty evidence on perioperative complications also changed significantly in favour of LDN over time (yearly change in LnRR = 0.107, 95% CI 0.022 to 0.192; P = 0.014). Various different combinations of techniques were used in each study, resulting in heterogeneity among the results.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

LDN is associated with less pain compared to ODN and has comparable pain to HALDN and RDN. HALDN is comparable to LDN in all outcomes except warm ischaemia time, which may be associated with a reduction. One study reported kidneys obtained during RDN had greater warm ischaemia times. Complications and occurrences of perioperative events needing further intervention were equivalent between all methods.

Laterality in laparoscopic hand assisted donor nephrectomy - Does it matter anymore? Outcomes of a large retrospective series

This retrospective study was performed to analyse if laterality of the retrieved living donor kidney had any effect on donor and recipient outcomes after hand assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN). 739 donors who underwent HALDN between January 2006 and January 2018 at a large tertiary transplant centre in the United Kingdom were included. Donor outcomes in individuals undergoing right versus left HALDN were compared with respect to conversion rates, morbidity, warm and cold ischaemia times and recipient failure rates, vascular and ureteric complications. 604 (81.7%) underwent left HALDN and 135 (18.3%) underwent right HALDN, mean age was 47.1 years and 46.8 years respectively with comparable gender distribution. The operative time was shorter for the left side (p = 0.003) and improved during the study for the left but not the right side. In recipients who received left kidneys there were more early technical failures observed (8 versus 1) though not statistically significant. Most centres prefer performing a left nephrectomy and recipient surgeons prefer a left kidney for transplantation primarily because of having a longer vein. This large study provides reassurance that right HALDN nephrectomy is a safe procedure with similar outcomes to left HALDN.

Evidence of Resilience in Kidney Donors: A New York Statewide Cohort Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Donor nephrectomy (DN) is a procedure performed to provide recipients with a kidney to treat end-stage renal disease. The following analysis evaluated depression diagnosis in DN patients compared to controls.

METHODS

DN patients and matched controls were identified between 2000 and 2009 from the Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System database. Cohorts were tracked for depression incidence. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine independent predictors of a postoperative depression diagnosis.

RESULTS

The total study cohort included 2108 DN cases and 2108 controls. In both donors and controls, the baseline rate of depression was 0.95% (n = 20). The 5-year incidence of depression diagnosis after exposure increased in both cohorts (donors: 2.5%, n = 53; controls: 7.2%, n = 152; P < .001). The 5-year relative risk for developing depression was 2.65 (CI 1.59-4.42, P = .0002) in donors and 7.60 (CI 4.79-12.07, P < .001) in controls. On multivariable regression, being a donor was associated with reduced risk of developing postoperative depression (OR = 0.322, CI 0.233-0.445, P < .001), and the greatest risk factor for postoperative depression was a prior depressive diagnosis (OR = 7.811, CI 3.814-15.997, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Our analysis shows that the strongest risk factor for depression was a prior diagnosis of depression. However, willingness to undergo donor nephrectomy is associated with less subsequent depression than the control population, suggesting that kidney donors may be a more resilient cohort.

Comparison of Surgical Techniques in Living Donor Nephrectomy: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis

Background

The aim of this study was to compare and evaluate surgical techniques used for living donor nephrectomy (LDN).

Material/Methods

We performed a meta-analysis to compare 4 surgical techniques: open LDN (OLDN), laparoscopic LDN (LLDN), hand-assisted LLDN (HALLDN), and robot-assisted LLDN (RLDN).

Results

No significant differences were found among these surgical techniques in terms of BMI, donor postoperative complications, 1-year graft survival, and DGF. Compared to the OLDN, the other 3 surgical techniques preferred to harvest the left kidney. When the right kidney was chosen as a donor, OLDN was the first-choice surgical technique. EBL was significantly lower in the HALLDN, LLDN, and RLDN groups when compared to the OLDN group. However, operative time and WIT were significantly shorter in the OLDN group. The RLDN group had an increased rate of donor intraoperative complications and a significantly lower VAS on day 1. The OLDN group required more morphine intake than the LLDN group. The length of hospital stay was significantly longer and AR was significantly higher in the OLDN group than in the LLDN and HALLDN groups.

Conclusions

There are no significant differences in donor postoperative complications, recipient DGF, and graft survival among the 4 surgical techniques. OLDN reduces WIT and operation time, but increases EBL and AR. RLDN and LLDN reduce the length of hospital stay, morphine intake, and VAS, and thus accelerate recovery. However, RLDN is associated with increased intraoperative complications.