Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

Trends in US Kidney Transplantation During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Solid organ transplants have been impacted significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. Limited data exist regarding changes in living donor kidney transplants. The aim of this study was to describe national trends in kidney transplantation during COVID-19. This descriptive cross-sectional study used publicly available data from the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) and the National Kidney Registry (NKR). Plots of national waitlist inactivations, waitlist additions, deceased donor transplants and living donor transplants were created. An Auto Regressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) model with interrupted time series analysis adjusting for first-order autocorrelation was used to evaluate for significant changes in outcome trends every four-week period during the COVID-19 era between March 15 and August 1, 2020. A statistical significance of 0.05 (𝛼) was established for analysis. Changes in kidney transplant volumes during the COVID-19 outbreak were registered. Density mapping and linear regression with interrupted time series analysis were used to characterize changes over time nationwide. Kidney transplants were affected significantly in recent months due to COVID-19. Deceased donor and living donor kidney transplant trends are described in this paper in addition to operative recommendations.

Laparoscopic living donor right nephrectomy: Assessment of outcome and association of BMI to length of right renal vein

AIMS

The aim of this study was to describe outcomes of laparoscopic living donor right nephrectomy (LLDRN) and study factors affecting the length of right renal vein from the donors.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This study was conducted in 60 donors (48 males and 12 females) from January 2016 to December 2017. We performed a retrospective review of consecutive patients who underwent transperitoneal right laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy at our unit.

RESULTS

LLDRN was successfully performed in all subjects by the same surgeons. Among 60 cases, 47 donors had single renal artery and vein, 2 cases had one artery and 2 veins, and 5 donors had 2 arteries and one vein, and the rest had 2-3 arteries with 1-3 veins. Operative time was 142.60±33.73min. Warm ischemic time was 2.64±0.76min. The mean hospital stay was 6.69±0.63 days. The median length of right renal vein was 1.92±0.41cm. All transplanted kidneys showed immediate function. No graft losses were recorded. Almost no gender differences were found in study variables except BMI and warm ischemic time, that was higher BMI but shorter warm ischemic time in female versus male donors. Further analysis showed a negative correlation between BMI and right renal vein (r=-0.282, P<0.05), but a positive correlation between operative time and estimate blood loss (r=0.37, P<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

LLDRN is a feasible safe procedure, less traumatic approach, and provides good outcomes kidney for recipients. Notably, in the study group the higher BMI was associated with resulting more difficult LLDRN and kidney transplantation.

Robotic-assistance does not enhance standard laparoscopic technique for right-sided donor nephrectomy

Robotic-assistance did not improve outcomes associated with laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in this study.

Objective:

To examine donor and recipient outcomes after right-sided robotic-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (RALDN) compared with standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) and to determine whether robotic-assistance enhances LDN.

Materials & Methods:

From December 2005 to January 2011, 25 patients underwent right-sided LDN or RALDN. An IRB-approved retrospective review was performed of both donor and recipient medical charts. Primary endpoints included both intraoperative and postoperative outcomes.

Results:

Twenty right-sided LDNs and 5 RALDNs were performed during the study period. Neither estimated blood loss (76.4mL vs. 30mL, P=.07) nor operative time (231 min vs. 218 min, P=.61) were significantly different between either group (LDN vs. RALDN). Warm ischemia time for LDN was 2.6 min vs. 3.8 min for RALDN (P=.44). Donor postoperative serum estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFR) were similar (53 vs. 59.6mL/min/1.73m², LDN vs. RALDN, P=.26). For the recipient patients, posttransplant eGFR were similar at 6 months (53.4 vs. 59.8mL/min/1.73m², LDN vs. RALDN, P=.53).

Conclusion:

In this study, robotic-assistance did not improve outcomes associated with LDN. Larger prospective studies are needed to confirm any perceived benefit of RALDN.

Another option for laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy: a single center experience comparing two-port versus hand-assisted technique

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical outcomes of two-port laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (TPLDN) vs hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between November 2010 and March 2012, 100 kidney donors scheduled for left nephrectomy were alternatively assigned to HALDN or TPLDN in a 1:1 fashion. All procedures were performed by the same laparoscopic surgeon. Demographic data and intraoperative and early postoperative data were collected prospectively and analyzed.

RESULTS

There was no difference in the operating time (133±12 vs 142±17 min, P=0.07), blood loss (55±46 vs 58±52 mL, P=0.84), complication rate (10% vs 12%, P=0.74), and length of hospital stay (3.8±0.8 vs 4.1±2.8 days, P=0.5) between the HALDN and TPLDN groups. The warm ischemia time was longer in the TPLDN group (2.2±0.7 vs 3.5±0.9 min, P<0.001). No statistically significant differences were found in the analgesic requirement and the visual analog pain scores. There was a trend toward quicker return to 100% recovery in the TPLDN group (60±46 vs 39±15 days, P=0.05). The TPLDN group had a significantly smaller surgical incision (8.2±0.6 vs 5.5±0.4 cm, P<0.001) and higher scar satisfaction score (7.8±1.5 vs 8.6±1.3, P=0.02) than the HALDN group. No differences were found in the recipient serum creatinine values or in the incidence of delayed graft function.

CONCLUSIONS

In comparing TPLDN and HALDN, there was no significant difference in a majority of the operative and postoperative parameters. TPLDN might be associated with smaller surgical incision, improved cosmetic satisfaction, and equivalent recipient graft function.

Laparo-endoscopic single site (LESS) versus standard laparoscopic left donor nephrectomy: matched-pair comparison

BACKGROUND

Laparo-endoscopic single site (LESS) surgery is a recent development in minimally invasive surgery. Presented herein is the initial comparison of LESS donor nephrectomy (LESS-DN) and standard laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy (LLDN).

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether LESS-DN provides any measurable benefit over LLDN during the perioperative period and subsequent convalescence.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Between November 2007 and November 2008, 18 consecutive patients underwent LESS-DN (17 left DN, 1 right DN). A contemporary matched-pair cohort of 17 patients undergoing standard LLDN was selected for retrospective comparison.

INTERVENTIONS

LESS-DN was performed through an intraumbilical novel multichannel port. The kidney was extracted through a slightly extended umbilical incision.

MEASUREMENTS

All data were prospectively accrued in an institutional review board-approved database. Convalescence data included visual analog pain scores and questionnaires containing patient-reported time to recovery end points.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

One right-sided donor was converted to standard laparoscopy and excluded from analysis. Baseline demographics, operating time, blood loss, and hospital stay were comparable between groups. Compared to LLDN, patients undergoing LESS-DN had similar in-hospital analgesic requirements and mean visual analog scores at discharge. After discharge, patient-reported convalescence was faster in the LESS-DN group, including days on oral pain medication (20 vs 6; p=0.01), days off work (46 vs 18; p=0.0009), and days to 100% physical recovery (83 vs 29; p=0.03). Mean warm ischemia time was longer in the LESS-DN group (3 vs 6.1 min; p<0.0001); however, allograft function was immediate and comparable between groups. One allograft in the LESS-DN group thrombosed postoperatively. Regardless of laparoscopic approach, patients' global satisfaction with kidney donation and willingness to recommend their procedure to others were favorable and equivalent between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This retrospective matched-pair comparison between LESS-DN and LLDN suggests that the single-port approach may be associated with quicker convalescence. In this initial series, LESS-DN had longer ischemia time, yet early allograft outcomes were comparable.

[Laparoscopic nephrectomy in a living donor]

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.

Transperitoneal laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: Current status

Renal transplantation is the treatment of choice for a suitable patient with end stage renal disease. Unfortunately, the supply of donor organs is greatly exceeded by demand. In many countries the use of kidneys from living donors has been widely adopted as a partial solution. Traditionally donor nephrectomy has been performed via a open flank incision however with some morbidity like pain and a loin scar. Currently, the donor nephrectomy is increasingly being performed laparoscopically with the objective of reducing the morbidity. It is also hoped that this will lead to increasing acceptance of living donation. The first minimally invasive living donor nephrectomy was carried out in 1995 at the Johns Hopkins Medical Center and since then many centers have undertaken laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy. The laparoscopic approach substantially reduces the donor morbidity and wound related problems associated with open nephrectomy. The laparoscopic techniques thus have the potential to increase the number of living kidney donors. The present article attempts to review the safety and efficacy of transperitoneal laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.

Kuwait Experience in Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy: First 80 Cases

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) has been adopted rapidly as it offers less postoperative pain, early recovery, and better cosmetic results compared with the open approach. This prospective study investigated the results of the first 80 LDN performed between May 2005 and May 2006, with regard to donor morbidity and effect on graft function.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

LDN was attempted in 80 donors by one surgical team. Donors included 68 men and 12 women, ages 22 to 53 years, with body mass indices of 17.9 to 42.4. According to computed tomographic angiography, left nephrectomy was planned in 75 donors and right nephrectomy in 5.

RESULTS

LDN was completed successfully in 74 (92.5%) and converted to open in 6 (7.5%) secondary to technical difficulties and operative bleeding. The mean operating time for LDN was 186.16 minutes (range, 95-260 minutes). Mean warm ischemia time (WIT) was 5.7 minutes (range 2-16 minutes). Mean hospital stay was 5.28 days (range, 3-14 days). Two donors (2.5%) were reexplored for postoperative bleeding. Renal function in all donors was satisfactory within 3 months of surgery. Immediate diuresis occurred in 76 (95%) recipients. Acute cellular rejection was diagnosed in 1 recipient. No association was observed between WIT, graft function, development of acute tubular necrosis (ATN), or rejection. Plasma creatinine normalization was clearly associated with donor age.

CONCLUSIONS

LDN was found to be a safe procedure with low postoperative morbidity and short recovery time for donors. It can potentially increase the donor pool.

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

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

Right laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: The Washington Hospital Center experience

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.

A Comparative Study of Laparoscopic with Conventional Open Donor Nephrectomy in Renal Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) has been gaining popularity among kidney donors. There have been concerns about the safety and efficacy of the procedure as compared to open donor nephrectomy (ODN). We compare our results on LDN with ODN.

METHODS

We retrospectively analysed our data of LDN and ODN. Duration of surgery, blood loss, period of hospitalisation, per oral intake and analgesic requirements.

RESULT

22 LDNs were done, the operation time ranged from 220-300 minutes, and blood loss from 100-150ml. In the first 10 laparoscopic operations four cases required conversion to open surgical dissection. Only one case was converted to open surgery in the subsequent 12 laparoscopic cases. Oral intake was started on the first postoperative day. Analgesic requirement in laparoscopy cases was less. Patients were mobilised on the first day after surgery. Patients were discharged by seventh day. There was no significant difference in the functioning of the graft after revascularisation in the recipient.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is a safe and effective technique of donor nephrectomy.

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

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.