Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: A single institution minimally invasive general surgeon experience 1999–2013

Safety and Intraoperative Results in Live Kidney Donors with Vascular Multiplicity After Hand-Assisted Laparoscopy Living Donor Nephrectomy

Background and Purpose

Vascular multiplicity is the most frequent anatomic variation in kidney donors. Despite concerns about risks, these allografts are increasingly used to overcome the shortage of kidney donors. The safety and clinical outcomes in living kidney donors were evaluated with vascular multiplicity after hand-assisted laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy (HALDN).

Patients and Methods

Data from all living kidney donors who underwent HALDN from 2008 to 2021 was retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into two groups as single (SRV) and multiple renal vessels (MRV), and a comparative analysis was done. The primary outcomes include operating room time (ORT), days of hospital stay, estimated blood loss, complications, conversion, and re-operations.

Results

MRV were present in 166 out of 612 donors (27.1%). Among those, 10 (1.6%) donors had simultaneous multiple arteries and veins. Additionally, the prevalence of artery and vein multiplicity was 21.8% (n = 134) and 3.5% (n = 22), respectively. Warm ischemia time was significantly different among the two groups but not clinically important. The number of conversions to open technique, the mean ORT, the median blood loss, and days of hospital stay were similar between the SRV and MRV groups, without significant differences. According to the modified Clavien-classification system, no differences were found in the complication rates between the two groups (p = 0.29). Complication rates were 3.3% and 3.6% for the SRV and MRV groups, respectively.

Conclusion

HALDN is a procedure with safe intraoperative results, even with vascular multiplicity. The presence of multiple renal arteries or veins has no negative impact on the outcome of the donor after living donor nephrectomy.

Nefrectomía laparoscópica en un programa de donante vivo en la Costa Caribe de Colombia

La nefrectomía laparoscópica en donante vivo es la mejor opción en el proceso del trasplante para pacientes con enfermedad renal crónica en estadio cuatro y cinco. El objetivo del artículo es describir la experiencia en el programa de donante vivo de riñón entre el 2013 y el 2018 en Colombiana de Trasplantes en la costa Caribe colombiana. Se realizó un estudio descriptivo que incluyó una muestra consecutiva de 55 donantes vivos de riñón operados por Colombiana de Trasplantes, entre enero de 2013 y enero de 2018; se llevó a cabo el análisis estadístico de las variables relevantes. La media de la edad fue de 41 años. El 57,4% de los donantes fueron mujeres. El tiempo de cirugía tuvo una media de 1,9 horas. Ninguno de los pacientes falleció en el seguimiento a los seis meses y el promedio de la estancia hospitalaria posterior a la cirugía fue de dos días. Las variables relevantes y los desenlaces de los pacientes son similares a los de otros grupos de trasplantes, sin embargo, hay características específicas que pueden ayudar a mejorar las estrategias en salud en la costa Caribe colombiana.

Evolution of Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy Techniques and Outcomes: A Single-Center Experience with More than 1000 Cases

Background

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) has evolved and has been established as a surgical standard of care for kidney transplantation.

Material/Methods

This study retrospectively reviews 1132 patients who underwent 4 different laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomies: hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy (HALDN), pure laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (PLDN), laparoendoscopic single-site plus 1-port donor nephrectomy (LESSOP-DN), and mini laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (MLDN).

Results

The mean estimated blood loss (EBL) for the HALDN group was meaningfully higher than those of LESSOP-DN and MLDN (57.5±52.2 mL versus 21.0±30.0 mL versus 18.2±28.7 mL) (P<0.001). The EBL for PLDN (53.3±35.3 mL) was also significantly higher than those of LESSOP-DN and MLDN (P<0.001). Length of stay (LOS) for HALDN was longer than that for LESSOP-DN (4.2±1.2 day versus 4.0±1.4 days, P=0.002). There was 1 intraoperative open conversion in the HALDN group and 2 HALDN surgeries that required postoperative exploratory laparotomy. LESSOP-DN had 3 (0.8%) postoperative incisional hernias. For recipients, the results revealed no significant differences between all 4 groups in terms of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and the 1-year graft failure rate.

Conclusions

The LESSOP-DN group was associated with a shorter incision length than those of HALDN and PLDN and shorter LOS than that of HALDN. Recipient results showed no meaningful difference regarding laparoscopic donor nephrectomy technique.

Hand-assisted Laparoscopic Nephrectomy: Evaluation of the Learning Curve

BACKGROUND

Hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN) has rapidly become the best alternative to open nephrectomy for living kidney donation. As more centers continue to adopt the laparoscopic technique, the safety of the initial transplants must be ensured while ascending the learning curve (LC). This study looks to determine the safety of HALDN and to describe the results of the LC in our center.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of 500 HALDNs performed in our center from July 2003 to July 2017. We analyzed demographic and perioperative characteristics and complications during the first postoperative month. We divided HALDNs into 2 groups: before and after completing the LC (50 nephrectomies). For each group, we assessed operating room time, estimated blood loss, length of stay, and complication and conversion rates.

RESULTS

A total of 500 HALDNs were performed in the study period. Of those, 454 were analyzed in the 2 groups. The median operating room time was 2 hours, length of stay was 2 days, and blood loss was 50 cc. The overall rate of complication was 6.8%. There were significant differences between the 2 groups in operating time, blood loss, and length of stay (P < .05). No differences were found in terms of complication (P = .42) and conversion (P = .28) rates.

CONCLUSION

There was a significant decrease in operating time, blood loss, and length of stay in patients who underwent laparoscopic donor nephrectomy by an experienced laparoscopist. However, no differences were found in complication and conversion rates, which suggests that improvement in surgical training can be accomplished without altering the donor safety.

Structured introduction of retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy provides a high level of safety and reduces the physical burden for the donor compared to an anterior mini incision: A cohort study

INTRODUCTION

A major goal in living donor kidney transplantation is to reduce the physical burden for the donor. Key-hole surgery for donor nephrectomy is a safe procedure, but concerns regarding donor safety during the learning phase might be the reason for surgeons' reluctance to change to a minimal invasive approach.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We analyzed the first 100 retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomies (RPDN) performed at our institution and compared the results to the last 50 mini incision donor nephrectomies (MIDN) regarding donor and recipient outcome, and analyzed the learning curves of RPDN.

RESULTS

The learning phase of RPDN was very short with significantly shorter operative times compared to MIDN (118 vs. 175 min, p < 0.001) and significantly fewer surgical complications (p = 0.03). RPDN patients rated the physical burden (p = 0.01) as lower, and they felt less bothered by the surgical scar (p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

Introducing RPDN is safe, even during the learning phase of the surgeons. Changing surgical technique from MIDN to RPDN reduces the surgical burden of the procedure. Our study might encourage more transplant centres to adopt a minimally invasive approach.

Renal Safety of Intravenous Ketorolac Use After Donor Nephrectomy

INTRODUCTION

The benefit and short-term safety of ketorolac have been established in previous studies however, the risk of bleeding and long-term renal impairment in patients undergoing donor nephrectomy remain unclear. We report our experience at a high-volume transplant center.

METHOD

Between January 1996 and January 2014, 862 consecutive patients underwent laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Exclusion criteria included nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug allergy, asthma, bleeding disorders, long-term opioid use, intraoperative blood loss >700 mL, peptic ulcer disease, bleeding diathesis, and baseline creatinine greater than 1.9 mg/dL. Intravenous ketorolac was administered within 30 minutes following the surgical procedure at a dose of 15 to 30 mg every 6 hours. Patients were categorized into 2 groups according to the administration of ketorolac after surgery. Differences between the groups were analyzed. Primary outcomes were changes in serum creatinine and hemoglobin levels. Poor outcome was defined as postsurgical complications.

RESULTS

During this time, 469 (55.3%) received ketorolac. The mean donor age was 39 years, and 360 (42.5%) were male. Left kidneys were procured in 82%. Operative time averaged 210 minutes and warm ischemia time117 seconds. Baseline demographic and operative outcomes were comparable in both groups. No statistically significant differences were found between the ketorolac group and the nonketorolac group in preoperative and postoperative hemoglobin levels and serum creatinine at 1 week, 1 year, and 5 years (P = .6). Ketorolac use was not associated with increased perioperative morbidity (P = NS).

CONCLUSION

The use of intravenous ketorolac in patients undergoing donor nephrectomy was not associated with an increased risk of bleeding or renal impairment.