Laparoscopic Living Donor Nephrectomy for Kidneys With Multiple Arteries

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.

3D Endoscopic Donor Nephrectomy Versus Robot-assisted Donor Nephrectomy: A Detailed Comparison of 2 Prospective Cohorts

BACKGROUND

There are 2 endoscopic surgical techniques that implement 3-dimensional (3D) vision to overcome visual misperception: 3D endoscopy and the da Vinci surgical system. 3D endoscopy has several advantages, such as the presence of tactile feedback and easy implementation, at lower costs. We aimed to assess whether 3D endoscopy could be an alternative to the robot during living donor nephrectomy.

METHODS

Between April 2015 and April 2016, we prospectively collected data on 40 patients undergoing 3D endoscopic living donor nephrectomies in 1 center, performed by a da Vinci-certified surgeon. Data on donors' perioperative results and recipient and graft survival were collected. These data were compared to 40 robot-assisted donor nephrectomies performed in the same center (between January 2012 and May 2014).

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics for both groups were comparable. Intraoperative results showed a significantly shorter median skin-to-skin time of 138.5 minutes (125.8-163.8) versus 169.0 (141.5-209.8) minutes in favor of the 3D group (P = 0.001). Warm ischemia time (P = 0.003) and hilar phase for both single (1 artery and vein) and multiple anatomies (≥1 artery and/or vein [P = 0.002 and P = 0.010, respectively]) were also significantly reduced in favor of the 3D group, with a flat learning curve. Follow-up demonstrated no readmissions nor significant differences for donors, recipients, and graft survival.

CONCLUSIONS

3D endoscopy may be a good alternative to robot-assisted donor nephrectomy because morbidity, graft, and recipient survival were comparable, with a significantly shorter median skin-to-skin time, warm ischemia time, and hilar dissection phase. Furthermore, implementation was easy and at lower costs, whereas tactile feedback was preserved.

Selection Criteria for Kidney Laterality in Retroperitoneoscopic Living Donor Nephrectomy and the Usefulness of Pretransplant Intervention

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the selection criteria for kidney laterality and the usefulness of pretransplant intervention in living donor nephrectomy.

METHODS

We compared conventional and revised criteria. The conventional criteria were that left kidneys were chosen in preference and provided the kidney with the fewest structural abnormalities and lowest functional decline and that most renal arteries remained in the donor. From April 2013, we allowed the use of left kidneys with double renal arteries. Patient characteristics and surgical outcomes were retrospectively compared between right and left retroperitoneoscopic living donor nephrectomies.

RESULTS

We compared data for 30 right kidney and 222 left kidney nephrectomies. Right kidneys were selected because of multiple renal arteries (n = 18), structural abnormalities (n = 10) of the left kidney, or functional decline (n = 2) of the right kidney. Right retroperitoneoscopic nephrectomies were associated with significantly longer operating times (267 minutes vs 241 minutes), larger blood losses (240 g vs 55 g), and higher open conversion rates (10% vs 0.9%). Pretransplant intervention was necessary for structural abnormalities in right kidneys, but the amended selection criteria resulted in fewer right nephrectomies. Pretransplant intervention was still necessary by ex vivo arterial anastomosis for multiple left renal arteries, which increased the total ischemia time (94 minutes vs 64 minutes); however, post-transplantation renal function was not significantly different.

CONCLUSIONS

Pretransplant intervention was beneficial both for repairing structural abnormalities and for reducing the difficulties of retroperitoneoscopic living donor nephrectomy.

Outcome of Living Donor Transplant Kidneys With Multiple Arteries

BACKGROUND

Living donor transplantation (LDT) using kidneys with multiple arteries (MA) has previously been reported to be associated with increased complications and poorer outcomes in recipients. The objective of this study was to investigate outcomes of LDT with MA at the National University Hospital of Singapore, an institution with modest kidney transplant volumes.

METHODS

From 2007 to 2014, a total of 109 consecutive living donor kidney transplantations were performed. Of the nephrectomies, 91% were left sided. A total of 19 cases involved MA, of which 7 with small polar vessels (<2 mm) were ligated and 12 were revascularized. Baseline characteristics and outcomes were comparable between donor-recipient pairs with MA and single artery (SA). Both groups had equivalent induction and maintenance immunosuppressive regimens.

RESULTS

Mean warm ischemia time (minutes) was similar for kidneys with MA and SA (4.3 ± 3.2 vs 3.9 ± 3.2, P = .38). Operative time (minutes) in the recipients was also equivalent (P > .05) for MA and SA (158 ± 39.2 and 145 ± 57.2, respectively). The MA kidney recipients had a lower estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) on postoperative day 5 compared to SA (56.6 ± 24.2 vs 74.1 ± 35.9 mL/min/1.73 m(2), P = .058). However, eGFR at 1 year was the similar for both groups (64.9 ± 16.2 vs 66.4 ± 18.1 mL/min/1.73 m(2), respectively, P = .76). Delayed graft function rates were 5.6% and 6.6% for MA and SA, respectively (P = .9). There were no surgical complications for LDT recipients within the MA group. Patient and graft survival was 100% in the MA group compared with 98% in the SA group (P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

With current surgical techniques, LDT with MA can achieve equally good functional outcomes at 1 year as SA kidneys, with minimal surgical complications.

Vascular Multiplicity Should Not Be a Contra-Indication for Live Kidney Donation and Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Whether vascular multiplicity should be considered as contraindication and therefore 'extended donor criterion' is still under debate.

METHODS

Data from all live kidney donors from 2006-2013 (n = 951) was retrospectively reviewed. Vascular anatomy as imaged by MRA, CTA or other modalities was compared with intraoperative findings. Furthermore, the influence of vascular multiplicity on outcome of donors and recipients was studied.

RESULTS

In 237 out of 951 donors (25%), vascular multiplicity was present. CTA had the highest accuracy levels regarding vascular anatomy assessment. Regarding outcome of donors with vascular multiplicity, warm ischemia time (WIT) and skin-to-skin time were significantly longer if arterial multiplicity (AM) was present (5.1 vs. 4.0 mins and 202 vs. 178 mins). Skin-to-skin time was significantly longer, and complication rates were higher in donors with venous multiplicity (203 vs. 180 mins and 17.2% vs. 8.4%). Outcome of renal transplant recipients showed a significantly increased WIT (30 vs. 26.7 minutes), higher rate of DGF (13.9% vs. 6.9%) and lower rate of BPAR (6.9% vs. 13.9%) in patients receiving a kidney with AM compared to kidneys with singular anatomy.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that vascular multiplicity should not be a contra-indication, since it has little impact on clinical outcome in the donor as well as in renal transplant recipients.

Shifting paradigms in eligibility criteria for live kidney donation: a systematic review

As the organ shortage increases, inherently the demand for donor kidneys continues to rise. Thus, live kidney donation is essential for increasing the donor pool. In order to create successful expansion, extended criteria live kidney donors should be considered. This review combines current guidelines with all available literature in this field, trying to seek and establish the optimal extended criteria. Comprehensive searches were carried out in major databases until November 2013 to search for articles regarding older age, overweight and obesity, hypertension, vascular anomalies/multiplicity, nulliparous women, and minors as donors. Of the 2079 articles found, 152 fell within the scope of the review. Five major guidelines were included and reviewed. Based on the literature search, live kidney donation in older donors (up to 70 years of age) seems to be safe as outcome is comparable to younger donors. Obese donors have comparable outcome to lean donors, in short- and mid-term follow-up. Since little literature is available proving the safety of donation of hypertensive donors, caution is advised. Vascular multiplicity poses no direct danger to the donor and women of childbearing age can be safely included as donors. Although outcome after donation in minors is shown to be comparable to adult donors, they should only be considered if no other options exist. We conclude that the analyzed factors above should not be considered as absolute contraindications for donation.

[Surgical aspects of living donor nephrectomy]

CONTEXT

Living donor renal transplant surgery has evolved from the classical nephrectomy by lumbotomy to less invasive surgery, the laparoscopic and robotic nephrectomy currently being the most important. It is important to know the available evidence on whether nephrectomy in patients with multiple arteries, right kidney and in obese patients can be performed safely when there is a correct indication.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a review of the different surgical techniques in living donor nephrectomy, adapted to the current surgical evidence and other aspects related to the indication.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic review was made in PubMed (1997-2011). This included previous reviews randomized controlled clinical studies, cohort studies, and meta-analyses of this surgical aspects of living donor nephrectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Currently, there is sufficient evidence to consider living donor laparoscopic nephrectomy as the technique of choice, although the role of hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic technique is still not totally clear. Open surgery techniques using mini-incision are an acceptable alternative for the sites that have not yet implemented laparoscopic surgery. Right kidney nephrectomy, of those cases that present multiple pedicles and in obese donors, is justified in selected cases.

Multiple renal arteries challenge in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: how far can we go?

Purpose

Living donor kidneys with multiple arteries are routinely procured laparoscopically. We aim to present our experience with laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) and to compare the graft function and outcome between cases with single versus multiple arteries.

Methods

We compared the demographic data, operation time, warm ischemia time, rejection rate, and graft function between LDN kidneys with single artery and those with multiple arteries.

Results

Seventy-three cases with 1 renal artery (group LDN-1), 8 cases with 2 renal arteries (group LDN-2) and 5 cases with 3 or more renal arteries (group LDN-3) were included in the study. The mean operative time was significantly higher in groups LDN-2 (100.3 ± 9.5 minutes) and LDN-3 (120.6 ± 10.3 minutes) compared to group LDN-1 (75.7 ± 10 minutes, P < 0.001). Similar results were detected with respect to the warm ischemia time. There were no statistically significant differences related to graft function and outcome among these groups.

Conclusion

Multiple renal arteries present a special challenge in both donor nephrectomy and renal transplantation. However, laparoscopic procurement of a kidney with multiple renal arteries, regardless of the number, is reliable and has no significant impact on the graft outcome.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic right donor nephrectomy: safety and feasibility

Purpose

We aimed to prove the safety and feasibility of right-sided hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN).

Materials and Methods

Between May 2006 and May 2009, 16 patients underwent right-sided HALDN at our institution. Of these patients, 15 showed significantly lower renal function in the right kidney than in the left one and 1 had a stone in the right kidney. When the right renal vein was divided, an EndoGIA stapling device was placed on the wall of the inferior vena cava to gain a maximal length of the vein. We evaluated intraoperative and postoperative parameters such as operative time, delivery time, warm ischemic time, estimated blood loss, intraoperative and postoperative complication rates, length of hospital stay, and serum creatinine levels of donors (at the time of discharge) and recipients (4 weeks postoperatively), comparing the right-sided HALDN group (our study) with a left-sided HALDN group (from a previously reported study).

Results

A total of 16 right-sided HALDNs were successfully performed without any complications or open conversion. All of the intraoperative and postoperative parameters were similar between the right-sided HALDN and left-sided HALDN groups. There were no technical problems in the recipients in the anastomosis of the renal vein, and the ureteral anastomoses were also successful.

Conclusions

Right-sided HALDN is safe and technically feasible in a donor, showing favorable graft outcomes. The results of our study suggest that right-sided HALDN may be preferable in patients with significantly lower renal function in the right kidney than in the left one.

Laparoscopic procurement of single versus multiple artery kidney allografts: is long-term graft survival affected?

BACKGROUND

Living donor kidneys with multiple arteries (MA) are increasingly procured laparoscopically for transplant.

METHODS

We compare long-term graft function and survival of kidneys with single arteries (SA) and MA over a 10-year period.

RESULTS

There were a total of 218 grafts with SA and 60 grafts with MA. The MA group had longer operative and ischemic times than SA group. There was a small increase in ureteral complication (8.3% vs. 2.3% P=0.06) and a significantly higher incidence of rejection (23.3% vs. 10.1%, P=0.01) in MA group than in SA group. Graft function was lower in MA group than SA group. The 5-year graft survival by Kaplan Meier analysis was better in SA group than in MA group (P=0.023). The estimated graft survivals at 1, 3, and 5 year were 94.4%, 90.6%, and 86% for SA group and 89.6%, 83.2%, and 71.8% for MA group. There was a higher percentage of graft loss from chronic allograft nephropathy in MA group than in SA group (16.7% vs. 5.5%, P=0.01). The presence of MA (vs. SA) was an independent risk for acute rejection (OR 3.60, 95% CI 1.59-8.14, P=0.002) and for graft loss (HR 2.31, 95% CI 1.05-5.09, P=0.038).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic procurement of living donor kidneys with SA may be associated with a lower risk of rejection, better function, and superior long-term survival when compared with kidneys with MA.

Living Donor Nephrectomy: Open versus Laparoscopic Technique

Background

The living donor nephrectomy has to be safe and effective, allowing a good graft function in the recipient. In the past, donor nephrectomy was performed only by open technique; more recently this nephrectomy has also been performed by laparoscopic technique. The best technique has not been established in literature. The purpose of this study is to report the results of open and laparoscopic nephrectomy in living donors.

Materials and Methods

From January 1992 to August 2008, 37 living donor nephrectomies were performed. 23 nephrectomies were achieved by laparoscopic procedure (LDN) and 14 by open technique (ODN). The 2 groups were comparable regarding both donor and recipient characteristics.

Results

All laparoscopic nephrectomies were successfully performed without conversion to open procedure. No donor deaths were reported in either groups. 3 complications (13%) in the LDN group and 1 (7.1%) in the ODN group (p=0.6) were observed. Mean operative time was higher in the LDN group (p<0.036). Mean warm and cold ischemia time, resumption of oral intake and hospital stay were shorter in the LDN group (p<0.04)(p<0.03) (p<0.0001), whereas the return to normal occupational life was similar (p<0.52). We had no significant differences in the surgical complication rates, graft and patient survival.

Conclusions

Our experience suggests that both procedures can be used safely and efficiently, and assure a good renal function in the recipient. Laparoscopic nephrectomy, although more difficult, provides post-operative advantages. However, laparoscopic procedure must be performed by experienced centres only to prevent serious complications in the donor.

Left or right kidney in hand-assisted donor nephrectomy? A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

There is an ongoing discussion in living renal transplantation whether the right or the left donor nephrectomy is to be preferred if both kidneys are equal, due to the lack of prospective studies.

METHODS

A prospective single-center randomized trial was conducted from April 2002 to September 2006, in which 60 eligible consecutive donors were randomized to either left-sided or right-sided hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN). Primary endpoint was operation time. Secondary endpoints were donor morbidity, warm ischemia time, delayed graft function, urological complications, quality of life, and graft survival.

RESULTS

Median operating time for left-sided HALDN (180 min) was significantly longer compared with right-sided HALDN (150 min; P=0.021). There were no conversions in both groups. There were no major intra- or postoperative complications. One-year graft survival rate was 96% in the left group versus 93% in the right group (P=0.625, log rank).

CONCLUSIONS

Operating time of HALDN of the right kidney is significantly shorter than HALDN of the left kidney. No differences were detected in complication rates and graft survival between left and right-sided donor nephrectomy.

Ten Years of Laparoscopic Living Donor Nephrectomy: Retrospect and Prospect From the Nephrologist’s Point of View

The laparoscopic living kidney donor nephrectomy introduced in 1995 has become an accepted method of kidney harvest for transplantation. The method has proven its usefulness as well as its superiority compared to open donor nephrectomy. Based on the results of a decade, an overview from a nephrologist's point of view is presented here in; a view that is known to be quite different from (and sometimes contrary to) the surgeon's approach. While urologists and surgeons focus more on the technique and complication rates, the nephrologist tends to estimate the new procedure with regard to his dialysis patients' outcomes (ie, whether it will result in an increased number of kidney transplantations in the long term). The latter aspect has to be the benchmark in the estimation of the effects of this procedure; it is the ultimate goal of every surgery in kidney transplantation. The 10-year results are more than encouraging, but nevertheless it will take at least one more decade for a valid evaluation.