Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

Relationship between surgical difficulty and postoperative complications of hand-assisted laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy and establishment of prediction model

BACKGROUND

Few studies have systematically explored the factors influencing the difficulty of hand-assisted laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy. To investigate the relationship between the difficulty of hand-assisted laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy and postoperative complications of the donor as well as the recipient, and then build a model for predicting the difficulty of surgery.

METHODS

In this study, 60 patients who underwent hand-assisted laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy by the same surgeon from September 2022 to March 2024 were included as the modeling group. 20 patients operated on by another surgeon served as the external validation group. The subjective score (1-3 points) of surgical difficulty was used as the quantitative index of surgical difficulty. Pearson and Spearman correlation tests were used to explore the correlation between preoperative data and surgical difficulty scores of kidney donors, and finally built a prediction model through multiple linear regression analysis.

RESULTS

With the increase in the difficulty of operation, both donors and recipients' complications were increased. Linear regression analysis showed that only the number of renal arteries, visceral fat thickness and MAP score were independent risk factors for the difficulty of hand-assisted laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy. The prediction equation is as follows: Difficulty score = 0.584*Number of renal arteries + 0.731*MAP score + 0.110*visceral fat thickness.

CONCLUSIONS

Donors with higher surgical difficulty are more likely to have serious complications after surgery as well as the recipient. We also established a reliable prediction model for the difficulty of hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.

The Prevailing Preference for Left Nephrectomy in Living Donor Transplantation Does Not Adversely Affect Long-Term Donor and Recipient Outcomes

BACKGROUND

In living donor renal transplantation, surgeons traditionally prefer the left kidney for donation. The aim of this study was to assess the effects of the choice of laterality of donor nephrectomy on donor and recipient outcomes.

METHODS

The data was obtained from the UK National Health Service Blood and Transplant (NHSBT). During the study period, 7919 donor nephrectomy and transplantation were carried out in 24 transplant centers. Of these procedures, 6407 (80.9%) were left and 1512 (19.1%) were right kidney donors.

RESULTS

Right kidney donation was associated with higher incidence of surgical site infection in the donor. Recipient outcome was superior for left-sided kidneys in terms of immediate graft function, delayed graft function, graft loss within 30 days, and graft survival at 3 years, but not at 1 and 5 years. Open donor nephrectomy (n = 2396, 30.2%) was associated with higher rates of pneumothorax and hemorrhage, longer hospital stay, and inferior graft survival at 3 and 5 years compared with laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (n = 5523, 69.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

A right donor nephrectomy is associated with higher rate of wound infection in the donor and similar long-term graft outcomes in the recipients. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy offers lower rate of major complications in the donor and a better overall graft survival.

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.

Transplantation and the primary care physician

Increasing appreciation of the survival benefits of kidney transplantation, compared with chronic dialysis, has resulted in more patients with kidney disease being referred and receiving organs. The evolving disparity between a rapidly increasing pool of candidates and a smaller pool of available donors has created new issues for the physicians who care for kidney patients and their potential living donors. This article outlines current efforts to address the growing number of patients who await transplantation, including relaxation of traditional donation criteria, maximization of living donation, and donation schemas that permit incompatible donor-recipient pairs to participate through paired donation and transplantation chains. New ethical issues faced by donors and recipients are discussed. Surgical advances that reduce the morbidity of donors are also described, as is the role of the primary physician in medical issues of both donors and recipients.

Laparoendoscopic single-site Pfannenstiel versus standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

OBJECTIVES

To compare laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) Pfannenstiel donor nephrectomy with a contemporary series of standard laparoscopic (SL) donor nephrectomies.

METHODS

The initial 6 LESS donor nephrectomies were compared with a case-matched 6 SL donor nephrectomies within the same time period (June 2008 till March 2009). Patient characteristics (sex, age, body mass index, graft volume, and vascular anatomy), perioperative data (operative time, warm ischemia time [WIT], and estimated blood loss), and postoperative information (complications, length of stay, visual analog scale [VAS], and total morphine requirements) were collected prospectively and analyzed retrospectively.

RESULTS

In the LESS group, there were no conversions to SL or open. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of baseline characteristics (age, body mass index, allograft volume). However, SL group included more right-sided patients (three compared with one) and more venous anomalies (retrorenal veins in two patients and multiple veins in another). There was no significant difference between SL and LESS in terms of operative time (117 vs. 142 minutes), WIT (5 minutes in both groups), estimated blood loss (150 vs. 100 mL), median length of stay (2 days in both), and total morphine equivalents (42 vs. 83 mg). None of the patients received transfusions perioperatively. A patient in the SL group developed a wound infection requiring packing and antibiotics. There were no perioperative complications in the LESS group. Although VAS scores were lower in the LESS versus SL group at each of post-operative day (POD) #2 (1.5 vs. 4) and discharge (0 vs. 2), this did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

In this small retrospective series, SL was associated with more complex renal anatomy. However, there was no difference between the two groups in terms of WIT, narcotic requirements, and VAS scores. Therefore, the advantages of LESS may only be cosmesis. To verify these results, both procedures need to be compared prospectively in a randomized fashion.

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.