Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy: Comparison to Pure Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy

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.

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

Objective

To compare the perioperative outcomes of hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN) and pure LDN, as HALDN and LDN are the two most widely used techniques of DN to treat end-stage renal disease.

Methods

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we performed a literature search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane from 01/01/1995 to 31/12/2014. The primary outcome was conversion to an open procedure. Secondary outcomes were warm ischaemia time (WIT), operation time (OT), estimated blood loss (EBL), complications, and length of stay (LOS). Data analysed were presented as odds ratios (ORs) or weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), I², and P values. Subgroup analysis was performed.

Results

There were 24 studies included in the meta-analysis; three randomised controlled trials (RCTs), one randomised pilot study, two prospective, and 18 retrospective cohort studies. There were no differences in conversion to an open procedure between the two techniques for both RCTs (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.06, 2.90; I² = 0%, P < 0.001) and cohort studies (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.63, 1.78; I² = 0%, P = 0.84). WIT was shorter for the HALDN (-41.79 s, 95% CI -71.85, -11.74; I² = 96%, P = 0.006), as was the OT (-26.32 min, 95% CI -40.67, -11.97; I² = 95%, P < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in EBL, complications or LOS.

Conclusion

There is little statistical evidence to recommend one technique. HALDN is associated with a shorter WIT and OT. LDN has equal safety to HALDN. Further studies are required.

Perioperative Events and Complications in Minimally Invasive Live Donor Nephrectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive live donor nephrectomy has become a fully implemented and accepted procedure. Donors have to be well educated about all risks and details during the informed consent process. For this to be successful, more information regarding short-term outcome is necessary.

METHODS

A literature search was performed; all studies discussing short-term complications after minimally invasive live donor nephrectomy were included. Outcomes evaluated were intraoperative and postoperative complications, conversions, operative and warm ischemia times, blood loss, length of hospital stay, pain score, convalescence, quality of life, and costs.

RESULTS

One hundred ninety articles were included in the systematic review, 41 in the meta-analysis. Conversion rate was 1.1%. Intraoperative complication rate was 2.3%, mainly bleeding (1.5%). Postoperative complications occurred in 7.3% of donors, including infectious complications (2.6%), of which mainly wound infection (1.6%) and bleeding (1.0%). Reported mortality rate was 0.01%. All minimally invasive techniques were comparable with regard to complication or conversion rate.

CONCLUSIONS

The used techniques for minimally invasive live donor nephrectomy are safe and associated with low complication rates and minimal risk of mortality. These data may be helpful to develop a standardized, donor-tailored informed consent procedure for live donor nephrectomy.

A comparison of technique modifications in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of different technique modifications in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analyses.

DATA SOURCES

Searches of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Central from January 1st 1997 until April 1st 2014.

STUDY DESIGN

All cohort studies and randomized clinical trials comparing fully laparoscopic donor nephrectomy with modifications of the standard technique including hand-assisted, retroperitoneoscopic and single port techniques, were included.

DATA-EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS

The primary outcome measure was the number of complications. Secondary outcome measures included: conversion to open surgery, first warm ischemia time, estimated blood loss, graft function, operation time and length of hospital stay. Each technique modification was compared with standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Data was pooled with a random effects meta-analysis using odds ratios, weighted mean differences and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals. To assess heterogeneity, the I2 statistic was used. First, randomized clinical trials and cohort studies were analyzed separately, when data was comparable, pooled analysis were performed.

RESULTS

31 studies comparing laparoscopic donor nephrectomy with other technique modifications were identified, including 5 randomized clinical trials and 26 cohort studies. Since data of randomized clinical trials and cohort studies were comparable, these data were pooled. There were significantly less complications in the retroperitoneoscopic group as compared to transperitoneal group (OR 0.52, 95%CI 0.33-0.83, I2 = 0%). Hand-assisted techniques showed shorter first warm ischemia and operation times.

CONCLUSIONS

Hand-assistance reduces the operation and first warm ischemia times and may improve safety for surgeons with less experience in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. The retroperitoneoscopic approach was significantly associated with less complications. However, given the, in general, poor to intermediate quality and considerable heterogeneity in the included studies, further high-quality studies are required.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The review protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database before the start of the review process (CRD number 42013006565).

Deviceless low-pressure operation; a cost-effective way to reduce CO2-induced barotrauma during hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

Between March 2008 and March 2011, hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomles were performed on 70 patients. Following the first 26 cases undertaken based on guidelines in the literature, we modified the procedure to avoid barotrauma to the kidney caused by the usual 12-13 mm Hg CO(2) pneumoperitoneum or pneumoretroperitoneum. The perirenal CO(2) pressure, therefore, was decreased to 8 mm Hg from the beginning of the surgery; the operation was performed without using a handport. Our early experience with the modified technique suggested that the safety and duration of the procedure were not affected but the incidence of delayed graft function due to barotrauma was decreased, a cost-effective improvement.

One hand is better than two: conversion from pure laparoscopic to the hand-assisted approach during difficult nephrectomy

INTRODUCTION

The incidence of conversion from a laparoscopic to an open approach during nephrectomy is reported at 6-8%. Conversion to an open procedure may be necessary to control haemorrhage or allow progress in dissection but the well established benefits of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) are obviously lost. Hand-assisted laparoscopy (HAL) also offers the benefits to the patient of MIS. We have used HAL to convert from the pure laparoscopic approach during difficult nephrectomies, rather than converting to traditional open surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A review of our prospective database was carried out to identify any conversions from the pure laparoscopic approach during nephrectomy or nephroureterectomy for benign or malignant disease.

RESULTS

A total of 87 laparoscopic nephrectomies (LNs) were identified over a 3-year period. There were five conversions to the HAL approach (5.7%) and no conversions to open surgery. The reason for conversion was failure to progress in all five cases. Operative times averaged 190 minutes with blood loss of 180 ml. Histology revealed xanthogranulomatous pyelonephritis in four cases and renal cell carcinoma in one case. The median postoperative stay was 4 days.

CONCLUSIONS

Conversion to HAL during LN maintains the benefits of MIS in difficult nephrectomy and should be considered prior to converting to open surgery.

Renal Function Recovery in Donors and Recipients after Live Donor Nephrectomy: Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic vs. Open Procedures

Purpose

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is associated with less postoperative pain and faster recovery times in living kidney donors. However, pneumoperitoneum, which is required in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy, can result in adverse effects on renal function in donors and recipients. We compared renal function in donors and recipients after hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN) and open donor nephrectomy (ODN).

Materials and Methods

Between January 1997 and January 2008, 241 live donor nephrectomies were performed by either HALDN (n=118) or ODN (n=123). Preoperative patient characteristics were not significantly different between the donors and recipients. We monitored the changes in serum creatinine levels of the donors and recipients preoperatively and on postoperative days 1, 5, 28, 84, and 365.

Results

The mean operative times of HALDN and ODN were 171 and 163 minutes (p=0.284), and the mean warm ischemic times were 292 and 236 seconds (p=0.207), respectively. The mean serum creatinine level in the recipients on postoperative day 1 was significantly higher after HALDN than after ODN (3.48 vs. 2.62 mg/dl, p=0.003). However, from postoperative day 5 to 1 year, there was no significant difference between the two groups. The mean serum creatinine level in the donors was not significantly different between the HALDN and ODN groups throughout the study period.

Conclusions

Renal function recovery in the donors was similar with both HALDN and ODN. Graft renal function recovery after HALDN was comparable with that after ODN, except immediately after surgery (postoperative day 1).

Article Commentary: The Role of Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy in Renal Transplantation

Renal transplantation is an effective treatment for patients with end-stage renal disease. Unfortunately, the number of patients waiting for transplantation greatly exceeds the number of suitable organs. Use of live kidney donors can increase the donor pool. Historically, donor nephrectomy was performed as an open technique. Its associated prolonged convalescence and long-term morbidity was likely a disincentive to donate. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy, however, has been shown to have fewer long-term complications without compromising graft function. Since its inception, there has been an increase in the number of live donor renal transplantations performed.

Donor complications following laparoscopic compared to hand-assisted living donor nephrectomy: an analysis of the literature

There are two approaches to laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) and hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN). In this study we report the operative statistics and donor complications associated with LDN and HALDN from large-center peer-reviewed publications. Methods. We conducted PubMed and Ovid searches to identify LDN and HALDN outcome studies that were published after 2004. Results. There were 37 peer-reviewed studies, each with more than 150 patients. Cumulatively, over 9000 patients were included in this study. LDN donors experienced a higher rate of intraoperative complications than HALDN donors (5.2% versus. 2.0%, P < .001). Investigators did not report a significant difference in the rate of major postoperative complications between the two groups (LDN 0.5% versus HALDN 0.7%, P = .111). However, conversion to open procedures from vascular injury was reported more frequently in LDN procedures (0.8% versus 0.4%, P = .047). Conclusion. At present there is no evidence to support the use of one laparoscopic approach in preference to the other. There are trends in the data suggesting that intraoperative injuries are more common in LDN while minor postoperative complications are more common in HALDN.