Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy has equivalent early and late renal function outcomes compared with open donor nephrectomy

Ureterovesical Leak Following Renal Transplant and Effects of Acute Rejection and Antirejection Therapy: A Nested Case-Control Analysis and Outcome of 1102 Consecutive Renal Transplant Recipients

OBJECTIVES

Studies on nontechnical risk factors for ureterovesical leak after renal transplant are scarce. This study aimed to report the possible pre- and postoperative risk factors and the role of acute rejection and antirejection therapies for urine leak after transplant and its effect on graft and patient survival.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of 13 patients (1.17%) with urine leak (case group) and 52 patients without leak (control group) (case-to-control ratio of 1:4) from 1102 living related (first degree) renal transplant recipients seen between January 2012 and December 2021. We analyzed demographic and clinical details and biochemical and outcome parameters using a nested case-control design.

RESULTS

Cases were olderthan controls (P = .018), were more ABO incompatible (P = .009), and had more 6/6 HLA mismatch transplants (P = .047). Donors of cases were older than donors of controls (P = .049). The rate of postoperative hypoalbuminemia was greaterin the case group (P = .050). Rates of acute rejection (P = .012) and plasmapheresis (P = .003) were greaterin the case group than in the control group. On multivariate logistic regression analysis, recipient age, 6/6 HLA mismatch, and plasmapheresis were found to independently associated with urine leak. None ofthe patient required surgical repair, as all responded to conservative therapy. Urine leak did not affect graft outcomes (P = .324), but overall survival was less in cases than in controls.

CONCLUSIONS

Nontechnical risk factors that cause posttransplant ureteric leak include older donor and recipient age and ABO incompatible and 6/6 HLA mismatch transplants. Acute rejection and plasmapheresis predispose leak, and an indwelling double J stent can allow adequate healing of the anastomosis. High index of suspicion and prompt management are imperative to preserve graft and patient outcome.

Robotic Assisted Living Donor Nephrectomies: A Safe Alternative to Laparoscopic Technique for Kidney Transplant Donation

OBJECTIVE

To review outcomes after laparoscopic, robotic-assisted living donor nephrectomy (RLDN) in the first, and largest series reported to date.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Introduction of minimal invasive, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy has increased live kidney donation, paving the way for further innovation to expand the donor pool with RLDN.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review of 1084 consecutive RLDNs performed between 2000 and 2017. Patient demographics, surgical data, and complications were collected.

RESULTS

Six patients underwent conversion to open procedures between 2002 and 2005, whereas the remainder were successfully completed robotically. Median donor age was 35.7 (17.4) years, with a median BMI of 28.6 (7.7) kg/m. Nephrectomies were preferentially performed on the left side (95.2%). Multiple renal arteries were present in 24.1%. Median operative time was 159 (54) minutes, warm ischemia time 180 (90) seconds, estimated blood loss 50 (32) mL, and length of stay 3 (1) days. The median follow-up was 15 (28) months. Complications were reported in 216 patients (19.9%), of which 176 patients (81.5%) were minor (Clavien-Dindo class I and II). Duration of surgery, warm ischemia time, operative blood loss, conversion, and complication rates were not associated with increase in body mass index.

CONCLUSION

RLDN is a safe technique and offers a reasonable alternative to conventional laparoscopic surgery, in particular in donors with higher body mass index and multiple arteries. It offers transplant surgeons a platform to develop skills in robotic-assisted surgery needed in the more advanced setting of minimal invasive recipient operations.

Early experience with hypothermic machine perfusion of living donor kidneys - a retrospective study

Although hypothermic machine perfusion (HMP) has been shown to be beneficial to deceased donor kidneys, the effect of HMP on living donor kidneys (LDK) is unknown. LDK are subjected to minutes of normothermic ischemia at the time of recovery. Comparison of 16 LDK preserved by HMP with 16 LDK preserved by static cold storage (SCS). Outcomes of interest are resistive indices (RI), both while on HMP and postoperatively, and creatinine clearance (CrCl). Injury markers NGAL and LDH were seen in the perfusate of LDK in amounts similar to what is found for donation after neurological determination of death kidneys. Compared to SCS kidneys, CrCl was significantly higher in the HMP group from days 2 through 7 post-transplant [ie: day 7 (78.8 ± 5.4 vs. 54.0 ± 4.6 ml/min, P = 0.005)]. CrCl at 1 year was higher in the HMP group (81.2 ± 5.8 vs. 70.0 ± 5.3 ml/min, P = 0.03). Early post-transplant RI was significantly lower in the HMP group (0.61 ± 0.02 vs. 0.71 ± 0.02, P < 0.0001). Our data support the assertion that injury does occur during LDK procurement and suggest that some of this injury may be reversed with HMP, resulting in more favorable early RI and graft function compared to SCS kidneys.

Ureteral Complications in Kidney Transplantation: Analysis and Management of 853 Consecutive Laparoscopic Living-Donor Nephrectomies in a Single Center

BACKGROUND

We report the incidence and nature of ureteral and surgical complications in our series of 853 consecutive living-donor renal transplants after laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy. The aim of this study was to analyze the therapeutic approaches to ureteral complications in kidney transplantations and their relationship with recipient outcome.

METHODS

The medical records of patients who underwent kidney transplantation from 2000 to 2014 were reviewed retrospectively. After the donor nephrectomies were performed with the use of laparoscopic, hand-assisted laparoscopic, and vesico-ureteral anastomosis, the recipient's ureteral complications were classified according to the mechanism and site of urinary tract involvement: anastomosis stricture, anastomosis leakage, vesico-ureteral reflux, and urolithiasis.

RESULTS

Among the 853 cases of kidney transplantation, ureteral complications occurred in 66 patients (7.73%). The most common complication was urinary tract infection caused by vesico-ureteral reflux (n = 24, 2.81%), which was managed with by means of sub-ureteral polydimethylsiloxane injection. The second most common complication was the anastomosis site stricture (n = 23, 2.69%), which was treated by means of ureteral re-implantation or percutaneous nephrostomy. Anastomosis site leakage occurred in 11 patients (1.28%) and was managed by percutaneous nephrostomy with double-J stenting and drainage or ureteral re-implantation. Urolithiasis occurred in 8 patients (0.93%).

CONCLUSIONS

There was an 8% rate of recipient ureteral complications at our institution. Of the 66 patients, 46 (5.4%) required surgical repair. The remaining 20 patients with ureteral complications were treated with conservative care or minimally invasive procedures. The keys to successful management of these problems are early diagnosis and prompt reconstruction whenever possible. Most ureteral complications are easily managed with a successful outcome with early intervention.

LESS living donor nephrectomy: Surgical technique and results

Purpose:

We present the findings of 50 patients undergoing pure trans-umbilical laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) living donor nephrectomy (LDN), between February 2010 and May 2014.

Materials and Methods:

Laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery LDN was performed through an umbilical incision. Different trocars were used, namely Gelpoint (Applied Mιdical, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA) SILS port (Covidien, Hamilton, Bermuda), R-port (Olympus Surgical, Orangeburg, NY) and standard trocars, inserted through the same skin incision but using separate fascial punctures. The standard laparoscopic technique was employed. The kidney was pre-entrapped in a retrieval bag and extracted trans-umbilically. Data were collected prospectively including questionnaires containing patient reported oral pain medication duration and time to recovery.

Results:

LESS LDN was successful in all patients. Mean warm ischemia time was 6.2 min (3–15), mean procedure time was 233.2 min (172–300), and hospitalization stay was 3.94 days (3–7) with a visual analogue pain score at discharge of 1.32 (0–3). No intraoperative complications occurred. The mean time of oral pain medication was 8.72 days (1–20) and final scar length was 4.06 cm (3–5). Each allograft was functional.

Conclusion:

Although challenging, trans-umbilical LESS LDN seems to be feasible and safe. Hence, LESS has the potential to improve cosmetic results and decrease morbidity.

Open and laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: activity and outcomes from all Australasian transplant centers

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LapDN) has been widely adopted despite a lack of randomized trials comparing recipient outcomes with open surgery. Review of registry data now seems the most realistic mechanism to compare outcomes. The Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry prospectively captures data on all renal transplants performed in Australia and New Zealand including long-term follow-up of recipients. AIM.: To compare graft outcomes among recipient of kidneys from donors undergoing nephrectomy using open and laparoscopic techniques, through analysis of the Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry after the introduction of laparoscopic donor surgery in Australia and New Zealand in 1997.

METHODS

Operative technique data for live donor transplants were collected from all surgeons performing live kidney donation procedures from May 1997 to December 2003; the outcomes of all live donor transplants were examined with follow-up to December 2007. Donor and recipient demographic variables and graft outcomes were compared between the laparoscopic and the open donor groups.

RESULTS

One thousand four hundred seventy-four live donor transplants were performed in 27 transplant centers. Of these, 315 (21%) were performed laparoscopically in 11 centers. Nineteen laparoscopic cases (6%) were converted to open. Total ischemic time was longer in the LapDN group (3.16 hr) than in the open donor group (1.61 hr, P<0.0001). The LapDN group experienced a lower incidence of rejection episodes (29.2% vs. 38.6%, P=0.002). Delayed graft function and technical failure rates were statistically equal across the groups. There were a total of 242 graft failures (175 graft losses and 67 deaths with a functioning graft, NS). Among surviving grafts, there was no consistent difference in serum creatinine at any time point. Graft and patient survivals were similar in both groups during 10-year follow-up.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that there is no difference in short- or long-term recipient outcomes for open and laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy.

[Anesthetic considerations in laparoscopy for removal of a kidney from a live donor]

Kidney transplantation is the main therapeutic alternative for patients with end-stage renal failure. However, the main constraint at present is the lack of available organs. Removal of a kidney from a live donor is a better option than conventional transplantation of a cadaver-donated organ. Among the advantages are a shorter waiting time for the organ recipient and greater assurance of graft quality and survival. The postoperative conditions made possible by laparoscopic surgery have encouraged the donation of tissues by live donors. Anesthetic treatment for patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery must be based on an understanding of the pathophysiologic changes that occur in this type of procedure so that complications can be prevented. This review provides an update of progress in laparoscopic surgery and the repercussions of anesthetic management, particularly with respect to anesthesia for kidney donors.

Laparo-endoscopic single-site (LESS) radical nephrectomy with renal vein thrombectomy: initial report

BACKGROUND

By combining trocar sites and extraction incision, Laparo-endoscopic Single-site Surgery (LESS) may provide less morbidity than traditional laparoscopy. Concerns continue about LESS for locally advanced tumors. We present our experience with LESS-radical nephrectomy with renal vein thrombectomy (LESS-RN-RVT) CASE PRESENTATION: Between 5-6/2009, 2 patients underwent LESS-RN-RVT (1 right-/1 left-side). Standard steps of multi-site laparoscopic radical nephrectomy were performed, including stapled renal vein thrombectomy and intact specimen extraction. Both cases were successfully completed by LESS without complications. Mean tumor size was 7.8 cm, incision size 4.5 cm, operative time 152 min, EBL 100 ml, and hospital stay 2.5 days. Both patients had negative margins, and are alive at time of last follow-up. One did not require postoperative opiates.

CONCLUSIONS

LESS-RN-RVT is safe and feasible in selected patients with renal vein thrombi. Further accumulation of data and comparison to multiport laparoscopic technique are requisite.

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

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

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.

Development of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a strategy to increase living kidney donation incentive and maintain equivalent donor/recipient outcome

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) has emerged as the preferred technique worldwide, and has contributed to a dramatic increase in living kidney donation during the past decade. We adopted LDN in 2002 with the intention of increasing living kidney donation incentive and maintaining equivalent donor/recipient outcome.

METHODS

Forty-five LDNs were performed between September 2002 and November 2007. Donor demographics, operative characteristics, perioperative complications and donor/recipient outcome were reviewed retrospectively. The LDN series was divided into earlier and later groups for comparison. To confirm the safety and efficacy of LDN, we compared the results with those of previous series and our open donor nephrectomy (ODN) series.

RESULTS

All 45 LDN kidneys were procured and transplanted successfully. Mean donor operation time was 327.7+/-10.2 minutes, blood loss was 286.0+/-48.3 mL, and warm ischemia time was 233.9+/-19.6 seconds. Two (4.4%) open conversions happened in the earlier group. There was a significant decrease in warm ischemia time and donor intraoperative complications in the later group. There was no donor mortality and there were no repeat surgical procedures. Delayed graft function occurred in 8.9% of cases and three (6.7%) recipients developed ureteral complications. All but one recipient was discharged with adequate renal function. Graft function continued in 41 of the 43 harvested kidneys (95.3%). Compared with ODN, there was a significant decrease in donor postoperative stay in the LDN series (p=0.00). There was no difference between the series with regard to donor safety, donor outcome, and immediate and long-term recipient outcome.

CONCLUSION

The number of living kidney donations increased significantly after adopting LDN in our series. The equivalent donor/recipient outcome of the LDN series compared with that of previous and ODN series was achieved with increasing experience.

The detrimental effect of poor early graft function after laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy on graft outcomes

We undertook this study to assess the rate of poor early graft function (EGF) after laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (lapNx) and to determine whether poor EGF is associated with diminished long-term graft survival. The study population consisted of 946 consecutive lapNx donors/recipient pairs at our center. Poor EGF was defined as receiving hemodialysis on postoperative day (POD) 1 through POD 7 (delayed graft function [DGF]) or serum creatinine >/= 3.0 mg/dL at POD 5 without need for hemodialysis (slow graft function [SGF]). The incidence of poor EGF was 16.3% (DGF 5.8%, SGF 10.5%), and it was stable in chronologic tertiles. Poor EGF was independently associated with worse death-censored graft survival (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 2.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.34-3.47, p = 0.001), worse overall graft survival (HR 1.62, 95% CI 1.10-2.37, p = 0.014), worse acute rejection-free survival (HR 2.75, 95% CI 1.92-3.94, p < 0.001) and worse 1-year renal function (p = 0.002). Even SGF independently predicted worse renal allograft survival (HR 2.54, 95% CI 1.44-4.44, p = 0.001). Risk factors for poor DGF included advanced donor age, high recipient BMI, sirolimus use and prolonged warm ischemia time. In conclusion, poor EGF following lapNx has a deleterious effect on long-term graft function and survival.

Perioperative renal protection

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a significant cause of perioperative patient morbidity and mortality. The definition of AKI has recently changed and further research is underway to identify clinically relevant biomarkers to aid in the diagnosis of the syndrome. AKI is often multi-factorial in origin and patients with certain preoperative risk factors are at elevated risk of perioperative AKI. An anesthesiologist's main objective for perioperative renal protection is prevention by maintenance of euvolemia, preservation of adequate renal perfusion, and avoidance of nephrotoxins. This review will address the definition and diagnosis of AKI, identify patients at risk of AKI, and critically appraise management options for perioperative renal protection.

Single port transumbilical (E-NOTES) donor nephrectomy

PURPOSE

We present the initial 4 patients undergoing single port transumbilical live donor nephrectomy. Scar-free abdominal surgery via natural body orifices is called NOTES (natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery). In a similar manner the umbilicus, an embryonic (E) natural orifice, permits abdominal access with hidden scar of entry. We propose the term E-NOTES for embryonic natural orifice transumbilical endoscopic surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Through an intra-umbilical incision a novel single access tri-lumen R-port was inserted into the abdomen. No extra-umbilical skin incisions were made whatsoever. A 2 mm Veress needle port, inserted via skin needle puncture to establish pneumoperitoneum, was used to selectively insert a needlescopic grasper for tissue retraction. Donor kidney was pre-entrapped and extracted transumbilically.

RESULTS

E-NOTES donor nephrectomy was successful in all 4 patients. Median operating time was 3.3 hours, blood loss was 50 cc, warm ischemia time was 6.2 minutes and hospital stay was 3 days. Median length of harvested renal artery was 3.3 cm, renal vein 4 cm and ureter 15 cm. No intraoperative complications occurred. Donor visual analog scores were 0/10 at 2 weeks. Each allograft functioned immediately on transplantation.

CONCLUSIONS

The initial experience with E-NOTES donor nephrectomy is encouraging. Excellent donor vascular and tissue dissection could be performed, and a quality donor kidney was retrieved transumbilically without any extra-umbilical skin incision. E-NOTES donor nephrectomy appears to have relevance and promise, especially for this typically younger, altruistic population. Natural orifices present an unprecedented opportunity for scar-free surgery.

[Ischemia-reperfusion syndrome and role of preservation graft technique after laparoscopic versus open nephrectomy in a experimental model of living donor kidney transplant]

INTRODUCTION

Delayed graft function alter living donor transplantation is a subject of debate. Delayed graft function can be partially explained by renal ischemia-reperfusion injury, when severe is associated with decreased graft survival. In this experimental living donor model study, we analyze the hemodynamic, histological and biochemical effects of laparoscopic nephrectomy. We also, analyze the effect of a pulsatile machine perfusion for kidney preservation during cold ischemia time.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Twenty large-white pigs (average weight 40-45 kgrs) were divided in 4 experimental groups: Group A: Laparoscopic nephrectomy+ immediate graft perfusion in pulsatile vacuum pump+autotransplant Group B: Laparoscopic nephrectomy+ immediate graft perfusion by gravity+autotransplant Group C: Open nephrectomy+immediate graft perfusion in pulsatile vacuum pump+autotransplant Group D: Open nephrectomy+ immediate graft perfusion by gravity+autotransplant Both laparoscopic and open nephrectomy were completed transperitoneally according to standardized technique. Hypothermic perfusion was done in a system designed in our lab.

RESULTS

We observed a decreased renal artery flow in kidneys procured laparoscopically compared to open nephrectomy. We found an artery flow recovery during the first 60 minutes after revascularization. Renal machine perfusion during cold ischemia time seems to have no beneficial effect, but shows a deleterious effect on hemodynamic event for renal transplantation. Lower plasma nitric oxide level is observed in kidneys obtained by laparoscopy compared with open surgical technique. And finally, we also found higher histological damage in proximal tubular and endothelial cell, in kidneys obtained by laparoscopy compared with open surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

In our experience: Laparoscopic nephrectomy versus open nephrectomy produces, in a model of living donor transplant, a lower value or renal blood flow and a higher value of renal vascular resistanse. These hemodynamic findings tend to normalize by 60 min after the reperfusion. A lower blood concentration of nitric oxide after the transplant was detected in laparoscopic group Vs open surgery group.

Beneficial effects of a new fluid regime on kidney function of donor and recipient during laparoscopic v open donor nephrectomy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) has been associated with delayed graft function compared with open donor nephrectomy (ODN). We have recently shown that the adverse effect of pneumoperitoneum (PP) on hemodynamics could be prevented by a new fluid regime. The aim of this study was to test the effect of this fluid regime on the kidney function of the donor and recipient after LDN and ODN.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We prospectively collected data of 51 donors undergoing ODN and 59 donors undergoing LDN as well as data from the corresponding recipients. All donors and recipients were treated with a standardized anesthesia and fluid regime. This fluid regime consisted of preoperative overnight hydration together with a bolus of colloid administered before induction of anesthesia and before introduction of PP. Follow-up was 2 years.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics of the two groups were comparable. Hemodynamics and urine output until nephrectomy were comparable between both groups. Donor kidney function did not differ after ODN and LDN. Estimated glomerular filtration rate, graft survival, and recipient survival did not differ between open and laparoscopically procured transplants. No adverse effects of the novel fluid regime (eg, pulmonary edema or additional oxygen supply) were observed in the donors.

CONCLUSION

In contrast to our earlier findings, the kidney function of the donor and recipient is comparable between ODN and LDN after introduction of a new fluid regime.

Cost effectiveness of laparoscopic versus mini-incision open donor nephrectomy: a randomized study

BACKGROUND

Cost-effectiveness remains an issue surrounding the introduction of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN).

METHODS

In a randomized controlled trial the cost-effectiveness of LDN versus mini-incision open donor nephrectomy (ODN) was determined. Fifty donors were included in each group. All in-hospital costs were documented. Postoperatively, case record forms were sent to the donors during 1-year follow-up to record return-to-work and societal costs. To offset costs against quality of life, the Euroqol-5D questionnaire was administered preoperatively and 3, 7, 14, 28, 90, 180, and 365 days postoperatively.

RESULTS

Mean total costs were euro6,090 (US$7,308) after LDN and euro4,818 ($5,782) after ODN (P<0.001). Disposables influenced the cost difference most. Mean productivity loss was 68 and 75 days after LDN and ODN respectively, corresponding to euro783 ($940) gained per donor after LDN. The main gain in quality of life in the LDN group was realized within 4 weeks postoperatively. LDN resulted in a mean gain of 0.03 quality-adjusted life years at mean costs of euro1,271 ($1,525) and euro488 ($586) from a healthcare perspective and a societal perspective, respectively. This implies that one additional Quality-Adjusted Life Year after LDN costs about euro16,000 ($19,200) from a societal point of view and about euro41,000 ($49,200) from a health-care perspective. Activities other than work were resumed significantly earlier after LDN (66 vs. 91 days, P=0.01).

CONCLUSION

In addition to a clinically relevant donor-experienced benefit from LDN, this technique appeared, given a societal perspective, a cost-efficient procedure mainly due to less productivity losses.

[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.

Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy for right kidneys: Experience in a German community hospital

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy has become the new gold standard for kidney procurement in many high-volume transplant centres worldwide, but it is often limited to left-sided donor kidneys. Concerns about adequate anatomical renal vessel length and sufficient surgical exposure are the main obstacles to the use of the laparoscopic approach for right kidney live donors as well.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

From 1998 to 2006 we performed laparoscopic kidney procurement in 73 live kidney donors on an intention-to-treat basis, harvesting a total of 48 left (LKG) and 25 right kidneys (RKG) for transplantation. We compared these two groups with respect to operating time, conversion rate, complications, hospital stay, and recipient outcome.

RESULTS

There were no differences in outcome of donor patients after left (D-LKG) or right laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (D-RKG). Operating time was 160 min in D-RKG versus 164 min in D-LKG. Warm ischemia was below 150 s in both groups. Hospital stay was 7.0 (D-RKG) versus 6.7 days (D-LKG). Negative events on the donor site were one temporary nerve irritation in each group and one postoperative retroperitoneal hematoma in the left kidney group. Reasons to convert to open nephrectomy were bleeding in two patients in the left kidney group and adhesions in one patient in the right kidney group. The outcome of the recipients after left (R-LKG) or right kidney (R-RKG) transplantation was similar. One kidney was lost due to renal vein thrombosis (R-LKG). Postoperative ureter complications occurred in one patient of each group. One patient of the R-RKG and two patients of the R-LKG required lymphocele fenestration. All other kidney transplants worked without problems.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is a safe procedure and has been established as the method of choice for live kidney donation in our clinic. Laparoscopic procurement of right and left kidneys can be performed with comparable quality and outcome for donors and recipients.

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.

Living donor of the kidney—open—video

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Living donor nephrectomy (LDN) has evolved a variety of different surgical techniques. Minimal invasive strategies were introduced to benefit the healthy donors. This paper attempts to identify the best possible practise in live kidney donation with special respect to donor safety.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We present a single-centre experience of 173 live kidney donations and describe the surgical technique of open retroperitoneal donation in detail and by video sequences. Additionally, the evidence for donor safety (mortality and morbidity) and the integrity of the graft function are reviewed, comparing different surgical techniques for LDN.

RESULTS

Focussing on maximal donor safety, a retroperitoneal access seems mandatory. Very detailed informed consent, including the offer for different retrieval techniques, has led to a total of 163 open and 10 hand-assisted retroperitoneal live kidney donations at our institution. Published and own data reveal longer operating and warm ischaemic times for minimal invasive kidney removal when compared with open technique. Adequate perioperative analgesia (peridural catheter) provides comparable patient comfort, duration of hospital stay, complications and graft function although there are some procedure-associated risks for minimal invasive techniques.

CONCLUSION

The special ethical situation of live donation necessitates maximal donor safety. Although open antero-lateral incision and retroperitoneal access does provide some inconveniences for the surgeon, we are convinced that this and the hand-assisted retroperitoneal approach are the only two options for LDN.

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.

Incidence of Ureteral Strictures After Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy

PURPOSE

Previous reports of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy have suggested that preservation of the gonadal vein with the specimen is important for preventing ureteral strictures. To test this hypothesis we examined our series of patients for the incidence of ureteral strictures when the gonadal vein was not preserved with the specimen during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We reviewed the records of 300 consecutive patients at our institution who underwent laparoscopic donor nephrectomy between 2000 and 2005. Mean donor age was 36.7 years (range 18 to 68) in the 167 female and 133 male donors. Mean recipient age was 38.4 years. Average followup was 2 years. During ureteral dissection the gonadal vein was transected just distal to the renal vein and left in situ. The ureter was dissected and transected at the level of the common iliac vessels. Indwelling ureteral stents were used for all recipient ureteral reimplantations and left in place for 1 month. In the postoperative period transplant recipients were followed biweekly for serum creatinine function during month 1 and monthly thereafter. All patients with increased creatinine (greater than 1.3 mg/dl) or an increasing trend were evaluated with transplant renal ultrasound. Clinically significant ureteral stricture was defined as persistent hydronephrosis resulting in impaired renal function and the need for percutaneous nephrostomy tube placement or ureteroscopic management.

RESULTS

After laparoscopic living donor transplantation without gonadal vein preservation we found no incidence of clinically significant ureteral stricture.

CONCLUSIONS

Gonadal vein preservation with the specimen during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is not necessary. Preservation of the periureteral blood supply is sufficient to prevent ureteral strictures.

Ureteral Complications in the Renal Transplant Recipient after Laparoscopic Living Donor Nephrectomy

OBJECTIVES

We report on ureteral and surgical complications in our first 110 consecutive recipients of kidneys procured with laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy (LLDN).

METHODS

The records of all living donor transplants with LLDN performed between February 1999 and December 2004, including 10 pediatric transplants, were reviewed retrospectively. Three urologists performed LLDN using a pure laparoscopic non-hand-assisted transperitoneal technique. Kidney transplantation was performed in a standard fashion. For ureteroneocystostomy, the intravesical Politano-Leadbetter (P-L) technique was used.

RESULTS

Two-year patient and graft survival was 99% and 98%, respectively. Serum creatinine at 12 months was 1.36+/-0.1mg/dl in adult and 0.99+/-0.23 mg/dl in pediatric recipients. Nineteen right donor kidneys were transplanted into adult recipients. Surgical complications included three symptomatic lymphoceles, one peritransplant haematoma and one kinking of a lower pole artery. All five (4.5%) ureteral complications occurred in adult recipients with a mean age of 33.2+/-2.8 years. The incidence of ureteral complications was not clustered around the early phase of our LLDN experience. Of the three (2.7%) patients diagnosed with ureteral obstruction, two required ureteral reimplantation, and one was managed conservatively. Another two patients (1.8%) with a urinary leak received a double J stent and a cystostomy catheter for 3 and 5 months, respectively. Of the five patients with a ureteral complication, three had received a donor kidney with more than one renal artery.

CONCLUSIONS

LLDN combined with the intravesical (P-L) ureteral implantation technique provides excellent graft outcomes with low recipient morbidity. Renal artery multiplicity may increase the risk of ureteral complications.

Laparoscopic vs open living donor nephrectomy: a contemporary series from one centre

OBJECTIVE

To report our experience of laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy (LDN) vs open donor nephrectomy (ODN), as LDN offers potential advantages to the donor and has become a routine procedure for live kidney procurement worldwide.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between February 2000 and August 2005 we performed 183 donor-recipient operations at our institution (ODN, 83; LDN, 100). We prospectively collected information on all donors and recipients for the same period to audit our experience with the first 100 LDNs. Patients made their operative choice after discussions that included unit experience and published information. We present our findings with the emphasis on donor operative details and early recipient graft outcome.

RESULTS

Donor and recipient age, gender, body mass index, human leukocyte antigen mismatches, and vascular anastomotic times did not differ significantly between the groups. There were two conversions to an open operation in the LND group; neither affected recipient-graft outcome. The mean (sd) operative duration was 178 (38) min for the LDN and 159 (34) min for the ODN (P < 0.05). The mean (sd) hospital stay was 4.7 (1.2) days in the LND group and 6.8 (1.5) days in the ODN group (P < 0.05). There was one case of delayed graft function in both groups. Serum creatinine levels at 1, 6 and 12 months after transplantation did not differ significantly between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our contemporaneous series shows the safe introduction of a laparoscopic living-donor programme without compromising donor patient safety or allograft outcome.

Methods of Vascular Control during Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy

Vascular control during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) requires expeditious control of the renal artery and vein while preserving maximum graft vascular length. The vascular stapler with three rows of staples on either side of the division has been widely used, but it loses more vascular length than other methods. In the accompanying video, we illustrate vascular control with the different staplers and locking polymer clips. The techniques include two nonabsorbable polymer ligating clips (10-mm Hem-o-Lok; MLX Weck Closure Systems), the Endo-GIA Universal stapler (35-mm length, 2.5-mm staples; Autosuture), and the Endo-TA 30 stapler (30-mm length, 2.5-mm staples; Autosuture). In an in-vitro study, we previously determined that the Endo-TA 30 stapler and the polymer clips resulted in significantly less compromise of the vessel length compared with the other methods of vascular control. LDN has been recently included by the clip manufacturer as a contraindication for the use of the polymer locking clips. The Endo TA stapler can be used when preservation of maximum graft vascular length is important.