Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Versus Open Donor Nephrectomy: A Retrospective Comparison of Perioperative and Functional Results in a Tertiary Care Center in Mexico

Cost-effectiveness of four living-donor nephrectomy techniques from a hospital perspective

BACKGROUND

In Europe, transplantation centres use different nephrectomy techniques: open surgery, and standard, hand-assisted and robot-assisted laparoscopies. Few studies have analysed the disparity in costs and clinical outcomes between techniques. Since donors are healthy patients expecting minimum pain and fast recovery, this study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of four nephrectomy techniques focusing on early surgical outcomes, an essential in the donation act.

METHODS

A micro-costing approach was used to estimate the cost of implementation from a hospital perspective. Estimates took into account sterilization costs for multiple-use equipment, costs for purchasing single-use equipment, staff and analgesics. The study recruited donors in 20 centres in France. Quality of life by EuroQol-5D was assessed preoperatively, and 4 and 90 days post-operatively. Two effectiveness indicators were built: quality-of-life recovery and post-operative pain days averted (PPDA). The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02830568, on 10 June 2010.

RESULTS

A total of 264 donors were included; they underwent open surgery (n = 65), and standard (n = 65), hand-assisted (n = 65) and robot-assisted laparoscopies (n = 69). Use of the nephrectomy techniques differed greatly in cost of implementation and immediate post-operative outcomes but not in clinical outcomes at 90 days. At 4 days, hand-assisted laparoscopy provided the lowest cost per quality-of-life recovery unit of effectiveness (%) and PPDA (days) (€2056/40.1%/2.3 days, respectively). Robot-assisted laparoscopy was associated with the best post-operative outcomes but with the highest cost (€3430/59.1%/2.6 days).

CONCLUSION

Hand-assisted, standard and robot-assisted laparoscopies are cost-effective techniques compared with open surgery. Hand-assisted surgery is the most cost-effective procedure. Robot-assisted surgery requires more healthcare resource use but enables the best clinical outcome.

Living donor nephrectomy

OBJECTIVE

The Guidelines Project, an initiative of the Brazilian Medical Association, aims to combine information from the medical field in order to standardize producers to assist the reasoning and decision-making of doctors.

CONCLUSIONS

The information provided through this project must be assessed and criticized by the physician responsible for the conduct that will be adopted, depending on the conditions and the clinical status of each patient.

Experience and Security of the Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Nephrectomy of a Living Donor in a Public Health Center

BACKGROUND

Hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy (HALDN) is currently the procedure of choice for obtaining living donor kidneys for transplantation. In our institution, it has been the standard procedure for 5 years. Previous studies have shown the same function of the graft as that obtained by open surgery, with a lower rate of bleeding and no differences in complications. We sought to demonstrate the experience and safety of HALDN compared with open donor nephrectomy in healthy donors for kidney transplantation.

METHODS

A retrospective analytical observational study was conducted, reviewing the records of the living donors for kidney transplant undergoing open donor nephrectomy or HALDN in our center from March 1, 2009, to March 1, 2016. Renal function was assessed by the estimated glomerular filtration rate by the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease method before and after donation, as well as bleeding (mL), and complications (according to Clavien), performing a comparative analysis between the two techniques using parametric or nonparametric tests.

RESULTS

A total of 179 living donor nephrectomies were performed during the study period-31 open donor nephrectomy (17.3%) and 148 HALDN (82.7%)-without relevant baseline differences, except for creatinine. HALDN has a shorter surgical time (156,473 ± 87.75 minutes vs 165,484 ± 69.95 minutes) and less bleeding (244.59 ± 416.08 mL vs 324.19 ± 197.986 mL) and a shorter duration of hospital stay (3.74 ± 1.336 days vs 4.75 ± 1.226 days). There were no significant differences in surgical complications at 30 days, or graft loss reported; there were 3 conversions (1.7%) from the HALDN to the open technique. There were no differences in renal function in the donors or recipients at the 5th day or the month after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic nephrectomy has replaced open surgery as the gold standard for living kidney donors. HALDN is a safe and feasible procedure when compared with open donor nephrectomy, achieving a shorter surgical time with less bleeding, and no difference in the number of complications. This procedure lowers costs by decreasing the duration of the hospital stay, making is feasible to perform it at any institution with appropriately trained personnel.

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.