1
|
Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic vs Hand-Assisted Retroperitoneoscopic Living-Donor Nephrectomy: A Retrospective, Single-Center, Propensity-Score Analysis of 840 Transplants Using 2 Techniques. Transplant Proc 2020; 52:1655-1660. [DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2020.01.134] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/07/2019] [Accepted: 01/10/2020] [Indexed: 11/20/2022]
|
2
|
Mercimek MN, Ozden E, Yakupoglu YK. Strategies to Perform Pure Retroperitoneoscopic Donor Nephrectomy: A Single-Center Cohort Study. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2020; 30:531-537. [PMID: 32208049 DOI: 10.1089/lap.2019.0785] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: Considering the increase in a number of vascular complications, right laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is less preferred due to achieving not only shorter renal vein but also longer renal artery. However, recent studies have indicated that the side of the surgery would not affect the outcomes. Aim: The aim of this study is to evaluate the outcomes and strategies to increase the safety of pure retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy (RDN). Methods: We analyzed the prospectively collected medical records of 158 kidney donors who underwent RDN from January 2010 to August 2018. The patients were divided into two groups based on their side of surgery. Right- and left-sided RDNs were compared in terms of demographics, intraoperative, and postoperative data, including the development of incisional hernia (IH). The outcomes of the recipients were also evaluated. Results: Right RDN was performed in 40 (25.3%) and left RDN was performed in 118 (74.7%) donors. Operation time (P = .593), warm ischemia time (P = .271), blood loss (P = .787), and length of hospital stay (P = .908) were statistically similar in right and left RDN groups. Intraoperative and postoperative complications were statistically showed no difference between right and left RDNs. No IH was observed in any group. One-year and five-year patient survival and graft survival rates were 100% versus 97% (P = .299) and 100% versus 95% (P = .126) on both sides, respectively. Conclusion: Right RDN is an effective and safe method as on the left side. RDN has an additional advantage in the absence of IH. Experience with other retroperitoneoscopic urological interventions may have had a positive effect on the outcomes of pure RDN.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Ender Ozden
- Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Ondokuz Mayis University, Samsun, Turkey
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Tay WK, Kesavan A, Goh YSB, Tiong HY. Right Living Donor Nephrectomies: Retroperitoneoscopic vs Laparoscopic Transperitoneal Approach. Transplant Proc 2018; 50:2333-2337. [PMID: 30316353 DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2018.03.051] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/23/2018] [Accepted: 03/06/2018] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Abstract
Retroperitoneoscopic right living donor nephrectomy (RLDN) provides direct access to the renal hilum without the need to mobilize the colon. However, factors such as lack of anatomic landmarks to guide orientation, smaller working space, and steep learning curve provided a debate against this approach. In this retrospective study, we reviewed our single-center experience of retroperitoneoscopic RLDN. MATERIALS AND METHODS Between January 2015 and January 2017, 10 patients underwent retroperitoneoscopic RLDN by a single surgeon at the National University Hospital, Singapore. Baseline demographics, intraoperative parameters, and both donor and recipient outcomes were retrieved from the database. RESULTS Mean (SD) age was 52.7 (13.8) years, mean (SD) body mass index was 25.2 (2.9) kg/m2, mean (SD) operating time was 196.8 (38.0) minutes, mean (SD) warm ischemic time was 5.1 (2.1) minutes, and mean (SD) blood loss was 43 (25.0) mL. Mean (SD) renal vein length was 10 (2.5) mm, and mean (SD) renal artery length was 6 (1.8 mm). One patient had to be converted to laparoscopic transperitoneal nephrectomy. No donors developed complications. Mean (SD) hospital stay was 3.5 (1.1) days. All transplanted right kidneys had immediate graft function with no complications. Mean (SD) serum creatinine (at 1 year) was 103.6 (20.3) μmol/L. There is no graft loss among the recipient after 1 year. CONCLUSIONS Right donor nephrectomy can be performed safely using retroperitoneoscopic approach. Retroperitoneoscopy offers advantages, especially in a patient who previously had transabdominal surgery or high body mass index. However, transperitoneal approach may be preferable in anomalous situations because it provides instinctive orientation from anatomic landmarks and a greater working space.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- W K Tay
- Department of Urology, National University Hospital, Singapore
| | - A Kesavan
- Department of Urology, National University Hospital, Singapore
| | - Y S B Goh
- Department of Urology, National University Hospital, Singapore
| | - H Y Tiong
- Department of Urology, National University Hospital, Singapore.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Shockcor NM, Sultan S, Alvarez-Casas J, Brazio PS, Phelan M, LaMattina JC, Barth RN. Minimally invasive donor nephrectomy: current state of the art. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2018; 403:681-691. [DOI: 10.1007/s00423-018-1700-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/25/2018] [Accepted: 08/03/2018] [Indexed: 01/09/2023]
|
5
|
Ng ZQ, Musk G, Rea A, He B. Transition from laparoscopic to retroperitoneoscopic approach for live donor nephrectomy. Surg Endosc 2017; 32:2793-2799. [PMID: 29218666 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-017-5981-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/21/2017] [Accepted: 11/05/2017] [Indexed: 10/18/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy has become the standard of care due to multiple benefits. Currently, there are various techniques employed with two different approaches: transperitoneal (TLDN) or retroperitoneoscopic (RLDN) approach. There is a lack of data to determine which technique is superior, although the RLDN offers an anatomical advantage by avoidance of manipulation of the intraperitoneal organs. The aims of this study were to explore the merits of RLDN to TLDN and assess the learning curve of transition from TLDN to RLDN. METHODS From January 2010 to February 2017, 106 live donor nephrectomies were performed: 56 by TLDN and 50 by RLDN. Data on patient demographics, perioperative parameters, analgesic consumption, pain scores, and kidney graft function were collected and analysed. Data were compared with a Student's t test or Mann-Whitney test. A CUSUM analysis was performed to investigate the learning curve. RESULTS All live donor nephrectomies were successful with no conversion to open surgery. There was no blood transfusion, readmission, or mortality. No postoperative complications were graded over Clavien II. Kidney function was comparable in both groups. The follow-up period ranged from 3 to 78 months. CONCLUSION Retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy is a safe approach with comparable results to TLDN. RLDN has an anatomical advantage as it avoids manipulating the intraperitoneal organs and retains a virgin abdomen and hence translates to a lower perioperative complication risk.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zi Qin Ng
- WA Liver and Kidney Transplant Service, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Perth, WA, Australia. .,WA Liver and Kidney Transplant Service, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Hospital Avenue, Nedlands, WA, 6009, Australia.
| | - Gabrielle Musk
- Animal Care Services, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia
| | - Alethea Rea
- Centre for Applied Statistics, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia
| | - Bulang He
- WA Liver and Kidney Transplant Service, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Perth, WA, Australia. .,School of Surgery, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia. .,WA Liver and Kidney Transplant Service, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Hospital Avenue, Nedlands, WA, 6009, Australia.
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Perioperative Events and Complications in Minimally Invasive Live Donor Nephrectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Transplantation 2017; 100:2264-2275. [PMID: 27428715 DOI: 10.1097/tp.0000000000001327] [Citation(s) in RCA: 52] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
7
|
Tuğcu V, Şahin S, Yiğitbaşı İ, Şener NC, Akbay FG, Taşçı Aİ. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy, complications and management: a single center experience. Turk J Urol 2017; 43:93-97. [PMID: 28270958 DOI: 10.5152/tud.2016.44711] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/15/2015] [Accepted: 04/12/2016] [Indexed: 11/22/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To present our experience with laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN), our complications and management modalities. Material and methods: Fifty-one transperitoneal LDNs performed in our clinic between the years 2011, and 2015, were evaluated retrospectively. Demographic characteristics of the patients, operative and postoperative data and complications were evaluated. RESULTS Nineteen female and 32 male patients with ages ranging from 24 to 65 years underwent left- (n=44), and right-sided (n=7) LDNs. Six patients had two, and one patient three renal arteries. Mean operation time was 115±11 (min-max: 90-150) minutes, and mean warm ischemia time 111±9 (min-max: 90-140 sec) seconds. Mean hospital stay was found to be 2.5±0.5 days. No patient needed to switch to open surgery. In one patient, lumbar vein was ruptured, and hemostatic control was achieved laparoscopically. Postoperative paralytic ileus developed in two patients. Three patients had postoperative atelectasis, and a febrile (38.1°C) episode. CONCLUSION LDN is a minimally invasive method with advantages of short hospital stay, less analgesic requirement, and better cosmetic results. However it should be performed by surgeons with advanced laparoscopic experience.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Volkan Tuğcu
- Clinic of Urology, İstanbul Bakırköy Dr. Sadi Konuk Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey
| | - Selçuk Şahin
- Clinic of Urology, İstanbul Bakırköy Dr. Sadi Konuk Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey
| | - İsmail Yiğitbaşı
- Clinic of Urology, İstanbul Bakırköy Dr. Sadi Konuk Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey
| | - Nevzat Can Şener
- Clinic of Urology, İstanbul Bakırköy Dr. Sadi Konuk Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey
| | - Fatih Gökhan Akbay
- Clinic of Nephrology, İstanbul Bakırköy Dr. Sadi Konuk Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey
| | - Ali İhsan Taşçı
- Department of Urology, Bezmialem Vakıf University School of Medicine, İstanbul, Turkey
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Özdemir-van Brunschot DMD, Scheffer GJ, Dahan A, Mulder JEEA, Willems SAA, Hilbrands LB, d'Ancona FCH, Donders RART, van Laarhoven KJHM, Warlé MC. Comparison of the effectiveness of low pressure pneumoperitoneum with profound muscle relaxation during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy to optimize the quality of recovery during the early post-operative phase: study protocol for a randomized controlled clinical trial. Trials 2015; 16:345. [PMID: 26265279 PMCID: PMC4533955 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-015-0887-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/02/2014] [Accepted: 07/27/2015] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Since technique modifications of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy, e.g. retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy or hand-assistance, have not shown significant benefit regarding safety or improvement of recovery, further research should focus on improving postoperative recovery. The use of low pressure pneumoperitoneum has shown to significantly reduce postoperative pain after laparoscopy. To facilitate the use of low pressure pneumoperitoneum, deep neuromuscular block will be used. METHODS/DESIGN This trial is a phase IV, single center, double-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial in which 64 patients will be randomized to: low pressure pneumoperitoneum (6 mmHg) and deep neuromuscular block or normal pressure pneumoperitoneum (12 mmHg) and deep neuromuscular block. Deep neuromuscular block is defined as post tetanic count < 5. Primary outcome measurement will be Quality of Recovery-40 questionnaire (overall score) on day 1. DISCUSSION This study is the first randomized study to assess the combination of low pressure pneumoperitoneum in combination with deep neuromuscular block from a patients' perspective. The study findings may also be applicable for other laparoscopic procedures. TRIAL REGISTRATION The trial was registered at trials.gov (NCT02146417) in July 2014.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Denise M D Özdemir-van Brunschot
- Department of Surgery, Division of Vascular and Transplant Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein-Zuid 10, Nijmegen, 6525 GA, The Netherlands.
| | - Gert J Scheffer
- Department of Anesthesiology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
| | - Albert Dahan
- Department of Anesthesiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
| | - Janneke E E A Mulder
- Department of Anesthesiology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
| | - Simone A A Willems
- Department of Anesthesiology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
| | - Luuk B Hilbrands
- Department of Nephrology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
| | - Frank C H d'Ancona
- Department of Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
| | - Rogier A R T Donders
- Department of Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
| | - Kees J H M van Laarhoven
- Department of Surgery, Division of Vascular and Transplant Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein-Zuid 10, Nijmegen, 6525 GA, The Netherlands.
| | - Michiel C Warlé
- Department of Surgery, Division of Vascular and Transplant Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein-Zuid 10, Nijmegen, 6525 GA, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
A comparison of technique modifications in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2015; 10:e0121131. [PMID: 25816148 PMCID: PMC4376908 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0121131] [Citation(s) in RCA: 28] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/19/2014] [Accepted: 01/28/2015] [Indexed: 12/26/2022] Open
Abstract
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).
Collapse
|
10
|
Kim BS, Kim KH, Yoo ES, Kwon TG. Hybrid Technique Using a Satinsky Clamp for Right-sided Transperitoneal Hand-assisted Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy: Comparison With Left-sided Standard Hand-assisted Laparoscopic Technique. Urology 2014; 84:1529-34. [DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2014.09.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/22/2014] [Revised: 08/09/2014] [Accepted: 09/08/2014] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
|
11
|
Yoon YE, Han WK, Choi KH, Yang SC, Kim YS, Kang DR, Huh KH, Kim MS, Kim SI, Joo DJ. Graft Survival After Video-assisted Minilaparotomy Living-donor Nephrectomy or Conventional Open Nephrectomy: Do Left and Right Allografts Differ? Urology 2014; 84:832-7. [DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2014.06.028] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/27/2014] [Revised: 06/17/2014] [Accepted: 06/21/2014] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
|
12
|
Impact of right-sided nephrectomy on long-term outcomes in retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy at single center. J Transplant 2013; 2013:546373. [PMID: 24228171 PMCID: PMC3818899 DOI: 10.1155/2013/546373] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/29/2013] [Revised: 09/09/2013] [Accepted: 09/09/2013] [Indexed: 12/26/2022] Open
Abstract
Objective. To assess the long-term graft survival of right-sided retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy (RPLDN), we compared the outcomes of right- and left-sided RPLDN. Methods. Five hundred and thirty-three patients underwent live donor renal transplantation with allografts procured by RPLDN from July 2001 to August 2010 at our institute. Of these, 24 (4.5%) cases were selected for right-sided RPLDN (R-RPLDN) according to our criteria for donor kidney selection. Study variables included peri- and postoperative clinical data. Results. No significant differences were found in the recipients' postoperative graft function and incidence of slow graft function. Despite significant increased warm ischemic time (WIT: mean 5.9 min versus 4.7 min, P < 0.001) in R-RPLDN compared to that in L-RPLDN, there was no significant difference between the two groups regarding long-term patient and graft survival. The complication rate in R-RPLDN was not significantly different compared to that in L-RPLDN (17% versus 6.5%, P = 0.132). No renal vein thrombosis was experienced in either groups. Conclusions. Although our study was retrospective and there was only a small number of R-RPLDN patients, R-RPLDN could be an option for laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy because of similar results, with the sole exception of WIT, in L-RPLDN, and its excellent long-term graft outcomes.
Collapse
|
13
|
Koch M, Bachmann A, Nashan B. Comparing Surgical Complications of Donors and Recipients in Retroperitoneoscopic versus Mini-Incision Donor Nephrectomy: A Single-Center Experience. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2013. [DOI: 10.5402/2013/539614] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/23/2022]
Abstract
Anterior vertical mini-incision donor nephrectomy (MIDN) has been used as the standard retrieval procedure in our center. Though the MIDN approach was tolerated very well with low complication rates, there were especially cosmetic reasons, to consider a change of procedure. Hence we switched to a total retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy (RPDN) in 2011. We compared the outcome and surgical complications of donors and recipients of the first 30 RPDNs performed with 30 consecutive MIDN procedures. In both techniques, right and left nephrectomies were carried out. After a very short learning curve, the mean RPDN operation times were shorter compared to the MIDN (109 versus 171 min, P<0.01) and donors were discharged earlier. No major complications occurred in the RPDN group and complications were less frequent compared to MIDN (17% versus 40%). The renal function in the recipients was equivalent in both groups at the time of discharge and after one year. We conclude that RPDN is easy to learn for a surgical team experienced in open retroperitoneal donor nephrectomy. The change of the retrieval technique is safe for the donor and the recipient regarding surgical complications and recipients’ renal function. Donors benefit from RPDN due to earlier hospital discharge and faster recovery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Martina Koch
- Department of Hepatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, University Medical Centre, Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246 Hamburg, Germany
| | - Alexander Bachmann
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Basel, Petersgraben 4, 4031 Basel, Switzerland
| | - Bjoern Nashan
- Department of Hepatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, University Medical Centre, Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246 Hamburg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Retroperitoneoscopic Renal Pedicle Lymphatic Disconnection for Chyluria in Presence of Complex Renal Vasculature. Urology 2012. [DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2012.08.043] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
|
15
|
Chen Z, Xie JL, Zhou C, Chen X. Technical modifications of hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic living donor nephrectomy: a single-center experience. Transplant Proc 2012; 44:1218-21. [PMID: 22663988 DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2011.12.079] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/25/2011] [Revised: 10/17/2011] [Accepted: 12/14/2011] [Indexed: 12/26/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To report a single-center experience and technical modifications of hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic living donor nephrectomy (HARLDN). METHODS A total of 78 living donors underwent HARLDN from June 2004 to November 2009. We used a three-port, finger-dissecting, routine retroperitoneal approach. After almost complete mobilization of the kidney, the renal pedicle was dissected to expose the renal vessels. The ureter was dissected and divided at the level of the iliac vessels. An approximately 7-cm Gibson incision was made as the hand-assisted port. The surgeon's hand was introduced through this incision directly. With hand assistance, the renal artery was clipped using two Hem-o-lok clips at the proximal end, and then sheared by scissors without any clips on the kidney side. The renal vein was controlled similarly. Then the kidney was rapidly removed through the incision by hand. RESULTS HARLDN was effectively and safely completed in 78 (100%) donors. No conversion to an open operation was necessary. The mean operative time and mean warm ischemic time were 121 minutes (range, 90-134) and 146 seconds (range, 112-247) respectively. The mean blood loss was 61 mL (range, 32-85). Clavien 1 complications including subcutaneous emphysema in 5.1% (4/78). The mean visual analog scales on postoperative days 1 to 5 were: 2.5, 1.2, 0.8, 0.5, and 0.1, respectively. The mean time to resume oral diet was 1.5 days. The mean hospital stay was 4.5 days (range, 4-5). The mean level of postoperative serum creatinines of the donors at 7 days and 1 month thereafter were 1.06 mg/dL (range, 0.74-1.43) and 1.15 mg/dL (range, 0.79-1.61) mg/dL, respectively. The mean level of postoperative serum creatinines of the recipients at 7 days and 1 month were 1.40 mg/dL (range 0.81-1.67) and 1.52 mg/dL (range, 0.76-1.83), respectively. The mean incision length was 6.5 cm (range, 6.0-7.2). CONCLUSIONS The modified HARLDN combines the purely laparoscopic technique with quicker, safer organ retrieval by the open access.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Z Chen
- Department of Urology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
16
|
Khauli RB, Traboulsi SL, Medawar W, Abu Dargham R, Abdelnoor AM, Hussein MK. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: The Middle East experience. Arab J Urol 2012; 10:46-55. [PMID: 26558004 PMCID: PMC4442909 DOI: 10.1016/j.aju.2012.01.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/12/2011] [Revised: 01/18/2012] [Accepted: 01/19/2012] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To summarize the experience of the Middle East in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN), to discuss the associated advantages and salient problems, to examine the learning curve encountered compared with that of the pioneering centres in the West, and the contribution of the regional centres to the worldwide experience. METHODS We searched Medline and PubMed for all centres performing LDN in the Middle East. Questionnaires were e-mailed to the regional transplantation centres, and programme directors, and leading urological and transplant surgeons were contacted by telephone. RESULTS LDN in the Middle East was first introduced in 2000; this approach has been pioneered and practised at seven transplant centres within five countries in the region, and was restricted to only three Arab countries, i.e. Lebanon, Egypt and Kuwait. Data collection yielded a total of 888 procedures over one decade, representing only 2% of the total of ≈50,000 transplants during the same period. Despite variability of accurate reporting the overall outcomes were similar to those of open DN. The spectrum of complications was comparable to that from major centres in the USA during their learning curve. CONCLUSIONS The introduction of LDN in the Middle East has been gratifying. The relative hesitancy in introducing LDN in the rest of the Arab Middle East is multifaceted. The advantages conferred to the donor underscore the need for further expansion of this approach for kidney retrieval.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Raja B. Khauli
- Division of Urology and Renal Transplantation Unit, American University of Beirut Medica, Center, Beirut, Lebanon
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
17
|
Introducing Hand-Assisted Retroperitoneoscopic Live Donor Nephrectomy: Learning Curves and Development Based on 413 Consecutive Cases in Four Centers. Transplantation 2011; 91:462-9. [DOI: 10.1097/tp.0b013e3182052baf] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/02/2023]
|
18
|
|
19
|
Technical modifications of retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy: Chinese experience. Transplant Proc 2010; 42:3440-3. [PMID: 21094793 DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2010.08.068] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/01/2009] [Revised: 07/31/2010] [Accepted: 08/26/2010] [Indexed: 11/21/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The objective of this article is to report a single-center experience and technical modifications of retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy (RPLDN). MATERIALS AND METHODS One hundred twenty-one 3-port RPLDNs were performed at our institution. No prisoners or organs from prisoners were used to collect the data for this study. The tributaries of renal artery and vein were transected using a harmonic scalpel after both ends of the tributary were coagulated intermittently until the color turned light yellow. Transection was made using shifting coagulation. A longitudinal 6-8-cm skin incision was extended inferiorly from the primary trocar with muscles intact. The renal artery was clipped using two Hem-o-Lok clips at the proximal end, and then sheared by scissors without any clips on the kidney side. The renal vein was controlled similarly. The graft was retrieved by insertion of a hand through the longitudinal lumbar incision. RESULTS The mean operative time and warm ischemia time were 126.1 and 3.6 minutes, respectively. No blood transfusion or open conversion was required. None of the donors encountered a major complication, but 7 suffered minor complications. Preoperative and postoperative mean serum creatinine levels of the donors were 1.00 and 1.29 mg/dL, respectively. The mean serum creatinine levels of the recipients postoperatively at day 1 and month 1 were 5.48 and 1.60 mg/dL, respectively. CONCLUSIONS The modified approach of RPLDN may be a useful alternative with flexible control of the renal vessels and tributaries and easy retrieval of the graft.
Collapse
|
20
|
|
21
|
Dols LFC, Kok NFM, IJzermans JNM. Live donor nephrectomy: a review of evidence for surgical techniques. Transpl Int 2010; 23:121-30. [DOI: 10.1111/j.1432-2277.2009.01027.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 64] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
|
22
|
Ma L, Ye J, Huang Y, Hou X, Zhao L, Wang G. Retroperitoneoscopic live-donor nephrectomy: 5-year single-center experience in China. Int J Urol 2010; 17:158-62. [DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-2042.2009.02443.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
|
23
|
Ye J, Huang Y, Hou X, Zhao L, Wang G, Tian X, Tang W, Fu Y, Ma L. Retroperitoneal Laparoscopic Live Donor Nephrectomy: A Cost-effective Approach. Urology 2010; 75:92-5. [PMID: 19815261 DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2009.07.1238] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/11/2009] [Revised: 07/09/2009] [Accepted: 07/20/2009] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
|
24
|
Flechner SM. Editorial comment. Urology 2009; 74:68; author reply 68. [PMID: 19567290 DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2009.01.049] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/18/2009] [Revised: 01/18/2009] [Accepted: 01/20/2009] [Indexed: 10/20/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Stuart M Flechner
- Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Yashi M, Yagisawa T, Nukui A, Ishikawa N, Miyamoto N, Sakuma Y, Fujiwara T, Muraishi O. Strategic Hand Assistance for Effective and Safe Retroperitoneoscopic Live Donor Nephrectomy. Transplant Proc 2009; 41:88-90. [DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2008.11.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/05/2008] [Revised: 10/23/2008] [Accepted: 11/05/2008] [Indexed: 12/01/2022]
|
26
|
Bachmann A, Wyler S, Wolff T, Gürke L, Steiger J, Kettelhack C, Gasser TC, Ruszat R. Complications of retroperitoneoscopic living donor nephrectomy: single center experience after 164 cases. World J Urol 2008; 26:549-54. [DOI: 10.1007/s00345-008-0296-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/29/2008] [Accepted: 05/19/2008] [Indexed: 10/21/2022] Open
|
27
|
Jellison FC, Shah SK, Mashni, Jr. JW, Nicolay LI, Ojogho OK, Baldwin DD. Vessel Length Following Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy: Impact of Vascular Ligation Technique on Allograft Vessel Length. J Endourol 2008; 22:973-7. [DOI: 10.1089/end.2007.0239] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/12/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Forrest C. Jellison
- Division of Urology and Transplantation, Loma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, California
| | - Satyan K. Shah
- Division of Urology and Transplantation, Loma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, California
| | - Joe W. Mashni, Jr.
- Division of Urology and Transplantation, Loma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, California
| | - Lesli I. Nicolay
- Division of Urology and Transplantation, Loma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, California
| | - Okechukwu K. Ojogho
- Division of Urology and Transplantation, Loma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, California
| | - D. Duane Baldwin
- Division of Urology and Transplantation, Loma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, California
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
|
29
|
Comparison of transperitoneal and retroperitoneal laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy. Chin Med J (Engl) 2007. [DOI: 10.1097/00029330-200712020-00031] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
|
30
|
Feifer A, Anidjar M. [Laparoscopic nephrectomy in a living donor]. ANNALES D'UROLOGIE 2007; 41:158-172. [PMID: 18260606 DOI: 10.1016/j.anuro.2007.04.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/25/2023]
Abstract
Kidney transplantation is the therapeutic option of choice for patients with end-stage renal disease. With the advent of safer harvesting techniques and immunosuppression, both donor and recipient outcomes have markedly improved in recent years. Kidney donation from Living donors remains the single most important factor responsible for improving patient and graft survival. The laparoscopic donor nephrectomy has revolutionized renal transplantation, allowing expansion of the donor pool by diminishing surgical morbidity while maintaining equivalent recipient outcome. This technique is now becoming the gold-standard harvesting procedure in transplant centres worldwide, despite its technical challenge and ongoing procedural maturation, especially early in the learning curve. Previous contraindications to laparoscopic donor nephrectomy are no longer absolute. In the following analysis, the procedural aspects of the laparoscopic donor nephrectomy are detailed including pre-operative assessment, operative technique and a review of the current literature delineating aspects of both donor and recipient morbidity and mortality compared with open harvesting techniques.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A Feifer
- McGill University Health Center, Royal Victoria Hospital, Department of urology, S6.88 Pine Avenue West, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| | | |
Collapse
|
31
|
Ruszat R, Wyler SF, Wolff T, Forster T, Lenggenhager C, Dickenmann M, Eugster T, Gürke L, Steiger J, Gasser TC, Sulser T, Bachmann A. Reluctance Over Right-Sided Retroperitoneoscopic Living Donor Nephrectomy: Justified or Not? Transplant Proc 2007; 39:1381-5. [PMID: 17580144 DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2007.02.069] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/30/2006] [Revised: 12/28/2006] [Accepted: 02/05/2007] [Indexed: 10/23/2022]
Abstract
UNLABELLED We retrospectively compared perioperative donor outcomes and early complication rate of right- and left-sided retroperitoneoscopic living donor nephrectomy (RLDN). METHODS From November 2001 to April 2006, we performed 118 RLDN. Including 24% (n = 28) right-sided RLDN and 76% (n = 90) left-sided RLDN. Perioperative results and the rate of adverse events were compared for both sides. RESULTS We observed no significant difference in operation time, blood loss, warm ischemia time, or postoperative creatinine levels between right- and left-sided kidney donors. RLDN was successfully performed in 116 of 118 donors. One donor in each group had to be converted to an open approach. We observed one graft loss due to renal artery kinking in one recipient after left-sided RLDN. Two right donations needed a saphenous venous patch due to a short right renal vein (<2 cm). Overall, intraoperative and postoperative complications were comparable between the two donor groups. CONCLUSION Right-sided RLDN provides comparable perioperative and postoperative results to those of left-sided RLDN. Our results demonstrated that groups with significant experience in RLDN can perform right living donor nephrectomy safely and efficiently with minimal invasiveness.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- R Ruszat
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Basel, Spitalstrasse 21, Basel 4031, Switzerland
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
32
|
Yashi M, Yagisawa T, Ishikawa N, Nukui A, Fujiwara T, Sakuma Y. Retroperitoneoscopic Hand-Assisted Live-Donor Nephrectomy According to the Basic Principle of Transplantation in Donor Kidney Selection. J Endourol 2007; 21:589-94. [PMID: 17638551 DOI: 10.1089/end.2006.0326] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/26/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE We assessed the feasibility of retroperitoneoscopic hand-assisted live-donor nephrectomy according to the basic principle of transplantation in kidney selection, namely, leaving the better-functioning kidney in the donor. PATIENTS AND METHODS Thirty consecutive live-donor nephrectomies, including 10 right-sided and 20 left-sided procedures, were evaluated. The surgery was started endoscopically using three ports, followed by hand assistance for dissecting the renal pedicles through the extended inner-port incision. A vascular Endostapler and polymer clips were used to transect the renal vessels. RESULTS Two right-sided cases required open conversion because of multiple renal vessels and uncontrollable bleeding. The median operative time, warm ischemia time (WIT), blood loss, and renal vein length were 244 minutes (upper and lower quartile 215 and 274 minutes), 186 seconds (134, 239 seconds), 175 mL (45, 305 mL), and 22 mm (19, 26 mm), respectively. The operative time and WIT were longer, and the renal vein was shorter, in the right-sided than in the left-sided procedures (P < 0.05), but no difference was found in the other perioperative data for the two sides. No delayed graft function was observed, and the kidney function 1 month postoperatively was acceptable in all donors and all recipients. CONCLUSION Our technical devices, such as the site and timing of hand assistance and control of the renal vessels, seem feasible. Although we could not draw a conclusion about the safety of the right-sided procedure, this alternative procedure should be applicable for laparoscopic donor nephrectomy uninfluenced by the side of the donor kidney provided the surgical team has sufficient expertise.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Masahiro Yashi
- Surgical Branch, Institute of Kidney Diseases, Jichi Medical University Hospital, Tochigi, Japan.
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
33
|
Paul A, Treckmann J, Gallinat A, Witzke O, Vester U, Broelsch CE. Current concepts in transplant surgery: laparoscopic living donor of the kidney. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2007; 392:501-9. [PMID: 17530281 DOI: 10.1007/s00423-007-0192-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/18/2006] [Accepted: 12/06/2006] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Living donor kidney transplantation has emerged as an excellent alternative to cadaveric donation since, more than 50 years ago, the first live donor nephrectomy was successfully performed. OBJECTIVE The basic idea of introducing laparoscopy in live donor nephrectomy was to obtain a potential reduction in incision-related morbidity with reduced pain and faster reconvalescence while providing at least the same level of operative security. This paper is focusing on technical aspects, outcome, results, and possible current concerns and advantages of laparoscopic living-related donor nephrectomy. CONCLUSION According to our results and the results available in the literature, laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy is safe when performed with sufficient experience. Postoperative pain is less and recovery is significantly faster.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andreas Paul
- Clinic for General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Duisburg-Essen, Hufelandstr. 55, 45122, Essen, Germany.
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
34
|
Breda A, Bui MH, Liao JC, Schulam PG. Association of Bowel Rest and Ketorolac Analgesia with Short Hospital Stay After Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy. Urology 2007; 69:828-31. [PMID: 17482915 DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2007.01.083] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/14/2006] [Revised: 09/05/2006] [Accepted: 01/24/2007] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Because of the shortage of cadaveric kidneys for allograft transplantation, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is becoming a more feasible option. Several large published series have reported hospital stays as long as 3.3 days. We report the positive effect of preoperative bowel rest and the use of ketorolac for postoperative analgesia on reducing the hospital stay after laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. METHODS From 2000 to 2005, 300 patients underwent laparoscopic donor nephrectomy at our institution by a single surgeon (P.G.S.). All patients underwent a bowel preparation regimen involving a clear liquid diet beginning 2 days before surgery. Furthermore, two bottles of magnesium citrate were taken orally the day before surgery, and all patients fasted after midnight before surgery. Patients self-administered one Fleets enema the evening before surgery. Postoperatively, the patients received ketorolac 30 mg intravenously every 6 hours for a maximum of 48 hours, with additional narcotics if necessary for analgesia. RESULTS The mean operative time was 180 +/- 55 minutes. Typically, patients were admitted the day of surgery and discharged the next postoperative day. The mean donor hospital stay was 1.1 days (range 1 to 3) with no readmissions. More than 97% of our patients were able to tolerate a clear liquid diet, pass flatus, and ambulate the day after surgery. CONCLUSIONS With implementation of a strict bowel preparation regimen and the use of ketorolac for postoperative analgesia, the donor length of stay was markedly improved from previously published results. We attribute the shorter hospital stay to the quicker return of bowel function and to less postoperative discomfort.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alberto Breda
- Department of Urology, University of California, Los Angeles, David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California 90095, USA.
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
35
|
Desai MR, Ganpule AP, Gupta R, Thimmegowda M. Outcome of Renal Transplantation with Multiple Versus Single Renal Arteries After Laparoscopic Live Donor Nephrectomy: A Comparative Study. Urology 2007; 69:824-7. [PMID: 17482914 DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2007.01.026] [Citation(s) in RCA: 41] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/14/2006] [Revised: 10/11/2006] [Accepted: 01/08/2007] [Indexed: 10/23/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To compare donor morbidity and recipient outcomes in patients with a single artery versus multiple arteries undergoing laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. METHODS A total of 303 consecutive laparoscopic donor nephrectomies were performed. Data from the group with multiple arteries (n = 27) (group I) were compared with those from the groups with single renal artery (n = 245) (group IIA) and early branching renal artery resulting in two artery recipient anastomoses (n = 31) (group IIB), in terms of donor and recipient outcomes. RESULTS Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy was technically successful in all 303 patients without need for open conversion. The graft retrieval time was higher in group I and group IIB compared with group IIA (3.9 +/- 1.4 and 3.9 +/- 0.8 versus 3.5 +/- 1.0 minutes). Similarly, warm ischemia time was significantly higher in groups I and IIB versus group IIA (7.2 +/- 1.9 and 6.7 +/- 1.9 versus 5.6 +/- 1.8 minutes). Creatinine level at day 1 was higher in group I compared with group IIA (2.4 +/- 1.4 versus 1.9 +/- 0.7 mg/dL). However, there was no significant difference in creatinine levels at 1 month and 1 year among the three groups. Overall graft survival in groups I, IIA, and IIB was 92%, 94.4%, and 94%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in the presence of multiple renal arteries is feasible and safe. Additionally, long-term graft survival and graft function at 1 month and 1 year are not adversely impacted by the presence of multiple renal arteries in grafts procured laparoscopically.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mahesh R Desai
- Department of Urology, Muljibhai Patel Urological Hospital, Nadiad, Gujarat, India.
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
36
|
Mahomed AA, Hoare C, Welsh F, Driver CP. A two-center experience with the exclusive use of laparoscopic transperitoneal nephrectomy for benign renal disease in children. Surg Endosc 2007; 21:1532-6. [PMID: 17342559 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-006-9162-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/28/2006] [Revised: 09/28/2006] [Accepted: 10/07/2006] [Indexed: 10/23/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND This study aimed to evaluate a two-center experience with pediatric transperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy, specifically focusing on the outcome parameters of operative time, complication, analgesic requirement, and postoperative stay. METHODS This ambispective study was conducted over a 4-year period between May 2001 and May 2005 in two tertiary pediatric surgical centers. Data were prospectively recorded from an in-house expanded medical audit system (EMAS) and a Microsoft Excel database. Information on patient demographics, operative time, complications, analgesic requirement, and length of hospital stay were retrieved and analyzed. RESULTS A total of 30 consecutive patients with a mean age of 4.43 years (range, 3 months to 15 years) underwent laparoscopic nephrectomy. All the patients underwent unilateral nephrectomy/nephroureterectomy for multidysplastic kidney (n = 12), reflux nephropathy (n = 13), pelvicoureteric junction obstruction (n = 4), or cystic disease of indeterminate cause (n = 1). The mean operative time was 93 +/- 30 min. The principal hemostatic devices used were the Harmonic Scalpel (20 cases), liga clips (5 cases), and hook diathermy and endoshears exclusively (4 cases). There were no conversions, but the intraoperative complications of bleeding (n = 2), difficult location (n = 1), difficult extraction (n = 1), and requirement for a liver retractor (n = 2) were encountered. An additional five patients had problems in the immediate postoperative period, two of whom went on to have long term difficulties with recurrent urinary tract infections resulting from a residual ureteric stump, which required surgery. Nearly one-third of the patients required morphine for analgesia in the immediate postoperative period, with the figure falling to 20% by day 1. The median postoperative hospital stay was 1 day (range, 0-16 days). At this writing, all the patients remain under surveillance with a mean follow-up period of 2.88 years, and no patients have experienced complications secondary to intraabdominal adhesions. CONCLUSION Transperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy is technically feasible in most cases of benign renal disease. The intraoperative complications are minimal, and recovery for most is robust. Two-thirds of the patients are discharged within 24 h. In this study, narcotic analgesics were prescribed in about a one-third of all the cases for a limited period. Further problems may be seen when refluxing ureters are incompletely excised. However, the transperitoneal approach does not mitigate against complete excision because the exposure to the pelvis is adequate. At the midterm follow-up assessment, adhesive obstruction was not encountered, confirming this approach as a tenable alternative to other laparoscopic approaches for nephrectomy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A A Mahomed
- Department of Paediatric Surgery, Royal Alexandra Hospital for Sick Children, 57 Dyke Road, Brighton, BN1 3JN, UK.
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
37
|
Sabharwal A, Kumar A. Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy. APOLLO MEDICINE 2006. [DOI: 10.1016/s0976-0016(11)60223-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/14/2022] Open
|
38
|
Diner EK, Radolinski B, Murdock JD, Ghasemian SR. Right laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: The Washington Hospital Center experience. Urology 2006; 68:1175-7. [PMID: 17169641 DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2006.08.1076] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/17/2006] [Revised: 05/16/2006] [Accepted: 08/17/2006] [Indexed: 10/23/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To review 167 consecutive laparoscopic living donor nephrectomies performed at the Washington Hospital Center to determine whether the side of extraction, right versus left, affects the operative outcomes. METHODS From January 2003 to June 2005, 167 consecutive patients (127 left and 40 right) underwent laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy. The right-sided and left-sided procedures were compared in the following categories: operative time, warm ischemia time, length of stay, and complications. RESULTS The mean operative time for a right donor nephrectomy was 220 minutes versus 228 minutes for a left. The mean estimated blood loss was 115 mL for right donor nephrectomy versus 106 mL for the left. The corresponding mean warm ischemia times were 5.32 minutes and 4.91 minutes. The median length of stay was 3 days in both groups. Five minor and three major complications occurred, including 2 patients with recognized bowel injuries and 1 patient who required reoperation for a bladder injury. CONCLUSIONS Historically, laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy has been performed solely on the left side because of the increased length of the left renal vein. However, in our experience, the operative parameters and postoperative results were equivalent in the right and left laparoscopic donor nephrectomy groups. Therefore, we recommend removal of the more appropriate kidney, regardless of side.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eric K Diner
- Department of Urology, Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC 20010, USA.
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
39
|
Rastogi N, Sahani DV, Blake MA, Ko DC, Mueller PR. Evaluation of Living Renal Donors: Accuracy of Three-dimensional 16-Section CT. Radiology 2006; 240:136-44. [PMID: 16720871 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2401050780] [Citation(s) in RCA: 34] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To retrospectively assess the sensitivity and specificity of three-dimensional (3D) 16-section computed tomography (CT) in the evaluation of vessels, pelvicalyceal system, and ureters in living renal donors, with surgical findings as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS This was a HIPAA-compliant study. Institutional review board approval was obtained for the review of subjects' medical records and data analysis, with waiver of informed consent. Forty-six renal donors (18 men, 28 women; mean age, 42 years) were examined with 16-section CT. Two blinded reviewers independently studied renal vascular and urographic anatomy of each donor CT scans by fist using 3D images alone, then transverse images alone, and finally transverse and 3D data set. Image quality, degree of diagnostic confidence, and time used for review were recorded. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated. RESULTS For 3D images, transverse images, and transverse in conjunction with 3D data sets, the respective sensitivity and specificity of CT in evaluation of accessory arteries by reviewer 1 were 100% and 100%, 89% and 100%, and 100% and 100%, and those by reviewer 2 were 89% and 97%, 89% and 100%, and 89% and 100%; the respective sensitivity and specificity in evaluation of venous anomalies by reviewer 1 were 100% and 98%, 100% and 98%, and 100% and 98%, and those by reviewer 2 were 100% and 98%, 100% and 95%, and 100% and 98%. For focused comprehensive assessment of renal donors with 3D scans alone, a reviewer on average (average of reviewers 1 and 2) used 2.4 minutes per scan, demonstrated full confidence in 93%, and rated the quality as excellent in 76%. CONCLUSION For focused assessment of renal vascular and urographic anatomy, review of 3D data set alone provides high sensitivity and specificity with regard to findings seen at surgery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Neeraj Rastogi
- Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit St, White 270, Boston, MA 02114, USA
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
40
|
|
41
|
Branco AW, Branco Filho AJ, Kondo W, George MA, Maciel RF, Garcia MJ. Hand-assisted right laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. Int Braz J Urol 2006; 31:421-9; discussion 429-30. [PMID: 16255787 DOI: 10.1590/s1677-55382005000500002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/10/2004] [Accepted: 06/20/2005] [Indexed: 05/05/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy has acquired an important role in the era of minimally invasive surgery. Laparoscopic harvesting of the right kidney is technically more challenging than that of the left kidney because of the short right renal vein and the need to retract the liver away from the right kidney. The aim of this article is to report our experience with right laparoscopic live donor nephrectomies. MATERIALS AND METHODS We performed a retrospective review of 28 patients who underwent right laparoscopic donor nephrectomies at our service. Operative data and postoperative outcomes were collected, including surgical time, estimated blood loss, warm ischemia time, length of hospital stay, conversion to laparotomy and complications. RESULTS The procedure was performed successfully in all 28 patients. The mean operative time was 83.8 minutes (range 45 to 180 minutes), with an estimated blood loss of 111.4 mL (range 40 to 350 mL) and warm ischemia time of 3 minutes (range 1.5 to 8 minutes). No donor needed conversion to open surgery and all kidneys showed immediate function after implantation. The average time to initial fluid intake was 12 hours (range 8 to 24 hours). Two cases of postoperative ileus and a case of hematoma on the hand-port site were observed. The mean postoperative hospital stay was 3 days (range 1 to 7 days). CONCLUSIONS Our data confirm the safety and feasibility of right laparoscopic donor nephrectomy and we believe that the right kidney should not be avoided for laparoscopic donor nephrectomy when indicated.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anibal W Branco
- Department of Urology and General Surgery, Cruz Vermelha Hospital, Curitiba, Parana, Brazil.
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
42
|
Sudhindran S, Bhat S, Sanjeevan KV, Sayeed CS. Laparoscopic Right Donor Nephrectomy: Is There a Right Way? J Endourol 2006; 20:309-11. [PMID: 16724900 DOI: 10.1089/end.2006.20.309] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE There is a continuing reluctance among transplant surgeons to procure a right-kidney allograft laparoscopically. We describe our experience with right laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (RLDN) by three techniques. PATIENTS AND METHODS We retrospectively analyzed all seven RLDNs performed at our center from January 2002 to June 2005. The technique used in a particular case depended on the anatomy of the renal vasculature and included transperitoneal (N = 1), retroperitoneoscopic (N = 4), and retroperitoneoscopy-assisted approaches without the use of hand port or other assist devices (N = 2). No stapling or manual-assist devices were used in the last four cases for division of the renal vessels. RESULTS The mean blood loss, operating time, hospital stay, and serum creatinine concentration on day 7 were 94.3 +/- 46.9 mL (SD), 212.8 +/- 66 minutes, 4.9 +/- 1.9 days, and 1.1 +/- 0.2 mg/dL, respectively. The overall warm ischemia time was 217 +/- 116 seconds. Our preferred technique currently is to go for a total retroperitoneoscopic approach to the right kidney initially. If the renal vein appears short, we make a small subcostal incision to retrieve the kidney openly at this stage (retroperitoneoscopy-assisted approach) with minimal risks to the donor and recipient. CONCLUSIONS Retroperitoneoscopic RLDN performed without hand-assist or stapling devices is safe and cost-effective and yields kidneys with excellent function. Rather than have a fixed approach to RLDN, we suggest a choice depending on the length of the renal vessels observed during surgery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Surendran Sudhindran
- Solid Organ Transplant Department, Amrita Institute of Medical Science, Edappally Kochi, India.
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
43
|
Narita S, Inoue T, Matsuura S, Horikawa Y, Kakinuma H, Saito M, Kumazawa T, Tsuchiya N, Satoh S, Habuchi T. Outcome of right hand–assisted retroperitoneoscopic living donor nephrectomy. Urology 2006; 67:496-500; discussion 500-1. [PMID: 16527565 DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2005.09.064] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/19/2005] [Revised: 08/23/2005] [Accepted: 09/23/2005] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To compare the results of right and left hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic living donor nephrectomy (HARDN) and assess the usefulness and feasibility of right HARDN. METHODS A total of 68 HARDNs performed from July 2001 to February 2005 in Akita University Medical Center were entered into this study. Of these, 12 cases were right-sided HARDN. The reasons for selecting right HARDN were wandering right kidney in 4, multiple left renal arteries in 3, lower glomerular function presenting in the right kidney in 2 patients, and left renal stone, right renal cyst, and right renal aneurysm in 1 patient each. We compared the perioperative and postoperative results of the 12 right-sided HARDNs with those of the 56 left HARDNs. RESULTS No significant differences were found between the two groups in the demographic data (ie, age, sex, number of renal arteries), except for the body mass index. None of the right HARDNs resulted in major complications or open conversion, but two left HARDNs required conversion to open surgery. No difference was found between the two groups regarding estimated blood loss, warm ischemia time, or time to oral intake, although the right HARDN group had a longer mean operative time. No significant differences were found in the recipient's postoperative graft function or in the frequency of delayed graft function. CONCLUSIONS Right HARDN provided almost similar perioperative and postoperative outcomes compared with those of left HARDN. Our results indicate that right HARDN is a choice for living donor nephrectomy because of its technical feasibility, safety, and minimal invasiveness, which are comparable to those of left HARDN.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shintaro Narita
- Department of Urology, Akita University School of Medicine, Akita, Japan
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
44
|
Abstract
Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy has become the accepted method of harvesting the kidney at many institutions because of multiple advantages over open donor nephrectomy. Spiral computed tomographic (CT) angiography provides accurate information of renal vascular anatomy and has become an accepted method of preoperative evaluation of potential laparoscopic renal donors. More recently, multidetector CT (MDCT) provides more detailed datasets compared with single-detector spiral CT and has been used for preoperative evaluation of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy to provide accurate anatomic information. MDCT (especially 16- and 64-slice MDCT) angiography has advantages over single-detector helical CT due to rapid scan time that allows coverage of a large volume of interest with higher spatial and temporal resolutions. In this article, we review the current status of MDCT angiography in the evaluation of laparoscopic renal donors and potential advantages of using this technology.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S Kawamoto
- The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Johns Hopkins Outpatient Center 3235A, 601 N. Caroline Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21287, USA.
| | | |
Collapse
|
45
|
Gupta N, Raina P, Kumar A. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. J Minim Access Surg 2005; 1:155-64. [PMID: 21206658 PMCID: PMC3004117 DOI: 10.4103/0972-9941.19262] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/05/2005] [Accepted: 12/12/2005] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Abstract
Of the various options for patients with end stage renal disease, kidney transplantation is the treatment of choice for a suitable patient. The kidney for transplantation is retrieved from either a cadaver or a live donor. Living donor nephrectomy has been developed as a method to address the shortfall in cadaveric kidneys available for transplantation. Laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy (LLDN), by reducing postoperative pain, shortening convalescence, and improving the cosmetic outcome of the donor nephrectomy, has shown the potential to increase the number of living kidney donations further by removing some of the disincentives inherent to donation itself. The technique of LLDN has undergone evolution at different transplant centers and many modifications have been done to improve donor safety and recipient outcome. Virtually all donors eligible for an open surgical procedure may also undergo the laparoscopic operation. Various earlier contraindications to LDN, such as right donor kidney, multiple vessels, anomalous vasculature and obesity have been overcome with increasing experience. Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy can be done transperitoneally or retroperitoneally on either side. The approach is most commonly transperitoneal, which allows adequate working space and easy dissection. A review of literature and our experience with regards to standard approach and the modifications is presented including a cost saving model for the developing countries. An assessment has been made, of the impact of LDN on the outcome of donor and the recipient.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nitin Gupta
- Department of Urology and Renal Transplantation, Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India
| | - Pamposh Raina
- Department of Urology and Renal Transplantation, Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India
| | - Anant Kumar
- Department of Urology and Renal Transplantation, Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India
| |
Collapse
|
46
|
Giessing M, Turk I, Roigas J, Schönberger B, Loening SA, Deger S. Laparoscopy for living donor nephrectomy - particularities of the currently applied techniques. Transpl Int 2005; 18:1019-27. [PMID: 16101722 DOI: 10.1111/j.1432-2277.2005.00165.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
Today, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) in many centers features the standard approach for kidney retrieval in living donors. More than 60% of the centers in the USA currently perform LDN and numbers are rising in Europe as well. Today's variety of laparoscopic approaches reflects the evolution in the field of LDN. Multiple modifications have been made for the laparoscopic approach, with consequences for intraoperative handling of the kidney, operating and ischemic times and with impact on donor, organ, and recipient. We reviewed the literature from 1995 to 2004 and critically evaluated the different technical modifications, their specific advantages and disadvantages and their impact for the operation. The article aims to help the surgeon choose the technique he feels most safe with for performing laparoscopic kidney retrieval safely and with good results for donor and recipient.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Markus Giessing
- Department of Urology (CCM), Charité University Hospital, Berlin, Germany.
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
47
|
Maione G, Sansalone CV, Aseni P, De Roberto A, Soldano S, Mangoni I, Perrino L, Minetti E, Civati G. Laparosopic Hand-Assisted Living Donor Nephrectomy: The Niguarda Experience. Transplant Proc 2005; 37:2445-8. [PMID: 16182703 DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2005.06.052] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/25/2022]
Abstract
Perioperative donor morbidity, a barrier to living organ donation, may be mitigated by the laparoscopic approach. From September 2002 to September 2004, 15 living donors, of ages ranging from 36 to 59 years, underwent laparoscopic nephrectomy. We used a hand-assisted device to increase the safety of the procedure. The average operating time was 200 minutes. The average blood loss was about 100 mL. The patients resumed oral intake and started walking within 1 day. The average postoperative hospital stay was 6 days. Although laparoscopic operating times were longer than those for traditional surgery, we showed benefits to the laparoscopic donor to be less postoperative pain, better cosmesis, shorter recovery time, and faster return to normal activities. We therefore consider laparoscopic nephrectomy a good alternative to traditional surgery for selected patients. Despite a lack of strong evidence, such as large prospective randomized studies, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is likely to become the gold standard for donor nephrectomy in the near future.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- G Maione
- Kidney and Pancreas Transplantation unit, Niguarda Hospital, Milan, Italy
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
48
|
Alston C, Spaliviero M, Gill IS. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Urology 2005; 65:833-9. [PMID: 15882706 DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2004.10.027] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/29/2004] [Revised: 09/22/2004] [Accepted: 10/11/2004] [Indexed: 10/25/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Celeste Alston
- Glickman Urological Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio 44195, USA
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
49
|
Derweesh IH, Goldfarb DA, Abreu SC, Goel M, Flechner SM, Modlin C, Zhou L, Streem SB, Novick AC, Gill IS. Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy has equivalent early and late renal function outcomes compared with open donor nephrectomy. Urology 2005; 65:862-6. [PMID: 15882712 DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2004.11.051] [Citation(s) in RCA: 36] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/07/2004] [Revised: 10/27/2004] [Accepted: 11/30/2004] [Indexed: 10/25/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To assess the patterns of early functional recovery and long-term function in laparoscopic and open procured live donor nephrectomy (LDN) kidneys, highlighting the radionuclide scan as an additional tool for assessment, because of concerns regarding renal functional recovery after laparoscopic LDN. METHODS We reviewed the donor and recipient records of 101 laparoscopic and 35 open LDNs performed between August 1997 and September 2001. Data were collected on demographic, immunologic, and intraoperative variables and ureteral/vascular complications. Delayed renal function recovery in recipients was evaluated by serum creatinine greater than 2.5 mg/dL on postoperative day 5, dialysis in first postoperative week, and two renographic criteria--the time to peak activity and the time to one-half peak activity on postoperative day 5. Long-term outcomes were evaluated by serum creatinine at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months and 2 and 3 years, creatinine clearance at 1 year, and patient and allograft survival. RESULTS Donor and recipient age, sex, body mass index, and number of HLA mismatches did not differ between the two groups. The mean operating room time and blood loss were comparable. No differences were found in the early functional parameters (renography, creatinine at postoperative day 1 and 5, or dialysis in week 1) or long-term outcome (patient and graft survival, creatinine, and rejection at 1 year and patient and graft survival at 1, 2, and 3 years). CONCLUSIONS Early recovery of graft function, longer term renal function, and 3-year patient and allograft survival are similar for live donor kidneys obtained by either a laparoscopic or an open surgical technique.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ithaar H Derweesh
- Glickman Urological Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio 44195, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
50
|
Current World Literature. Curr Opin Urol 2005. [DOI: 10.1097/01.mou.0000160630.81978.ac] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
|