Néphrectomie laparoscopique assistée par robot dans le cadre du donneur-vivant : étude chez les donneurs et les receveurs à partir de 155 cas

Robotic versus open mini-incision living donor nephrectomy: Single centre experience

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery is associated with less tissue manipulation and earlier recovery with minimal incision. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term clinical outcomes between robotic-assisted donor nephrectomy (RDN) and open mini-incision donor nephrectomy (ODN).

METHODS

From 2016 to 2019, 141 cases involving RDN were analysed. Patient outcomes were compared with those of 191 patients who underwent ODN from 2010 to 2015. Demographics, operation factors, perioperative outcomes, and complications were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

The RDN group presented with less blood loss than the ODN group (p = 0.023). The length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the RDN group than in the ODN group (p < 0.005). The overall rate of complications was low and there was no significant difference in complication rates between the groups.

CONCLUSION

The robotic approach has benefits over the traditional open approach, including shorter length of hospital stay and reduced intraoperative blood loss.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic retroperitoneal donor nephrectomy: a safe and efficient improvement

PURPOSE

Reducing operative injuries is important in living donor nephrectomy. The robot-assisted transperitoneal approach has some advantages than traditional laparoscopic techniques. However, longer operation time and risks of abdominal complications indicate the need for improved techniques. The aim of this study is to present the robot-assisted laparoscopic retroperitoneal donor nephrectomy and evaluate its safety and feasibility.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study. From June 2016 to December 2020, 218 living donors underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic retroperitoneal donor nephrectomy. Perioperative data such as operation time, warm ischemia time, length of stay and complications were collected and analyzed. To evaluate the feasibility of this surgical technique, the cumulative summation method was used to construct a learning curve.

RESULTS

There were 60 male and 158 female donors aged 36-72 years, with an average age of 53.1 ± 6.8 years. Three patients (1.4%) were converted to open surgery. The mean operation time was 115.4 ± 41.9 min, the warm ischemia time was 206.6 ± 146.7 s, and the length of stay was 4.1 ± 1.4 days. Complications were reported in 22 patients (10.1%), three of whom (1.4%) had Clavien‒Dindo IIIa complications. No ileus occurred. No donors were readmitted. Four patients had delayed graft function. The cumulative summation curve showed that the number needed to reach proficiency was 33. The operation time and warm ischemia time after technical proficiency were 100.4 ± 21.6 min and 142.5 ± 50.7 s, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Robot-assisted laparoscopic retroperitoneal donor nephrectomy is a safe and efficient technique that offers advantages of shorter operation time and no abdominal organ interference.

Robotic-assisted laparoscopy living donor nephrectomy: Technique and results of a monocentric retrospective series

INTRODUCTION

Robot-assisted nephrectomy for living kidney donation (LKD) has been described in the literature as a safe and reproducible technique in high volume centers with extensive robotic surgery experience. Any surgical procedure in a healthy individual ought to be safe in regards to complications. The objective of this study was to evaluate the Robotic-assisted Living Donor Nephrectomy (RLDN) experience in a robotic surgery expert center.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study from 11/2011 and 12/2019. In total, 118 consecutive Living Donor (LD) kidney transplants were performed at our institution. All the procedures were performed by robotic-assisted laparoscopic approach. Extraction was performed by iliac (IE), vaginal (VE) or umbilical extraction (UE). The left kidney was preferred even if the vascular anatomy was not modal.

RESULTS

For donors: the median operative time was 120min with 50mL of blood loss. The median warm ischemia time was 4min, with a non-significant shorter duration with the UE (4min) in comparison with IE or VE (5min). Nine patients had postoperative complications including 1 grade II (blood transfusion) and 1 grade IIIb (vaginal bleeding after VE). None of our procedures were converted to open surgeries and no deaths were reported. For the recipients: 1.7% presented delayed graft function; their median GFR at 1 year was 61mL/min/1.73m².

CONCLUSION

RLDN in an expert center appears to be a safe technique. The advantages of the robot device in terms of ergonomy don't hamper the surgical outcomes. Donor, recipient and graft survivals seem comparable to the reported laparoscopic outcomes in the literature.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

[Robot-assisted Living Donor Nephrectomy - Technical Aspects and Initial Evidence]

Minimally invasive donor nephrectomy has become the standard procedure in most transplant centres over the past two decades and has contributed to a reduction in postoperative morbidity for the donor. Robot-assisted technology is an alternative to conventional (hand-assisted) laparoscopic technology and will find increasing use in the future. In this review article, we address technical aspects of robotic-assisted donor nephrectomy, in accordance with our own experience and will provide an overview of the currently available literature. Robot-assisted living kidney donation is a safe procedure with a very low postoperative complication rate. The procedure offers advantages over the open surgical technique with respect to the reduction in the postoperative need for analgesia and the duration of hospital stay, with longer operating times and warm ischemia times, but without a measurable effect on transplant function. The postoperative outcome parameters are comparable to those of the laparoscopic technique, indicating a further acceleration of postoperative convalescence. The advantages of robot-assisted technology, due to the better exposure options, are most relevant in patients with a high BMI and multiple renal arteries, as well as in right-sided nephrectomies in which a longer transplant artery can be obtained. Robot-assisted living kidney donation will play a major role in the future of transplant surgery and is a serious alternative to conventional laparoscopic technology.

[The first 50 robot-assisted donor nephrectomies : Lessons learned]

Hintergrund

Die minimal-invasive Donornephrektomie (DN) ist inzwischen operativer Standard, bezüglich der Rolle von roboterassistierten Verfahren gibt es bisher keinen Konsens.

Fragestellung

Die ersten 50 transperitonealen roboterassistierten Donornephrektomien (RDN) einer urologischen Universitätsklinik in Deutschland wurden retrospektiv ausgewertet.

Material und Methoden

Patientencharakteristika, intra- und postoperative Parameter wurden erfasst und die Nierenfunktion in einem 5‑jährigen Follow-up ausgewertet. Signifikante Prädiktoren für die Nierenfunktion bei Entlassung und ein Jahr postoperativ wurden in einem multivariablen Regressionsmodell bestimmt.

Ergebnisse

Die RDN hat exzellente Ergebnisse mit niedriger Komplikationsrate, kurzer warmer (WIZ) und kalter Ischämiezeit (KIZ) sowie geringem Blutverlust und kurzer Patientenverweildauer. Die Seite der Nierenentnahme hat hierauf keine Auswirkungen. Nach RDN sind etwa 50 % der Spender formal niereninsuffizient, was aber zumeist ohne Relevanz ist, weil sich die Nierenfunktion der Spender im Follow-up nicht weiter verschlechtert. Die postoperative Nierenfunktion lässt sich bei der RDN mithilfe der präoperativen eGFR (errechnete glomeruläre Filtrationsrate) und dem Spenderalter sehr gut vorhersagen.

Schlussfolgerungen

Die robotische DN stellt eine sehr gute Alternative zu anderen minimal-invasiven Operationsverfahren dar, die von Beginn an exzellente operative Ergebnisse ermöglicht.