Hand-assisted laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy as an alternative to traditional laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy

Hand port-site infection after hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy for living-donor kidney transplantation: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN) is widely performed to minimize burden on living kidney donors. However, hand port-site infections after HALDN may occur. This study aimed to assess the impact of donor characteristics including preoperative comorbidities and operative factors on hand port-site infection after HALDN.

Methods

In this single-center, retrospective cohort study, 1,260 consecutive HALDNs for living-donor kidney transplantation performed between January 2008 and December 2021 were evaluated. All living donors met the living kidney donor guidelines in Japan. Hand port-site infections were identified in 88 HALDN cases (7.0%). To investigate risk factors for hand port-site infection, donor characteristics including preoperative comorbidities such as hypertension, glucose intolerance, dyslipidemia, obesity, and operative factors such as operative duration, blood loss, preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis, and prophylactic subcutaneous suction drain placement at the hand port-site were analyzed using logistic regression analysis.

Results

In the multivariate analysis, significant differences were identified regarding sex (P = 0.021; odds ratio [OR], 1.971; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.108-3.507), preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis (P < 0.001; OR, 0.037; 95% CI [0.011-0.127]), and prophylactic subcutaneous suction drain placement at the hand port-site (P = 0.041; OR, 2.005; 95% CI [1.029-3.907]). However, a significant difference was not identified regarding glucose intolerance (P = 0.572; OR, 1.148; 95% CI [0.711-1.856]). Preoperative comorbidities may not cause hand port-site infections within the donors who meet the living kidney donor guidelines. Preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis is crucial in preventing hand port-site infection, whereas prophylactic subcutaneous suction drain placement may increase the risk of hand port-site infection.

Evaluation of the Learning Curve of Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy

BACKGROUND In this study, we analyzed the learning curve of hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN). MATERIAL AND METHODS The first 198 consecutive donors (110 cases by expert surgeon and 88 cases by newbie surgeon) operated on using HALDN were included in this study. The primary outcome measures were warm ischemic time (WIT), total operation time and estimated blood loss (EBL). The secondary outcome measures included length of hospital stay (LOS), graft outcome, and surgery-related complications. We used the cumulative sum (CUSUM) method to generate learning curves. RESULTS Except for WIT, all operative and convalescence parameters of donors and graft outcomes were similar for the 2 groups, including the total operation time (174.13 minutes vs. 171.75 minutes, P=0.140), EBL (108.27 cc vs. 116.82 cc, P=0.494), LOS (4.80 days vs. 4.92 days, P=0.144), and overall rates of intraoperative and postoperative complications (P>0.05). A significant difference was observed in WIT between the 2 groups (140.59 sec vs. 106.85 sec, P=0.027). Upon visual assessment of the CUSUM plots, a downward inflexion point for decreasing WIT was observed in 4 cases, total operation time in 12 cases, and EBL in 15 cases. CONCLUSIONS HALDN has a relatively short learning curve and similar results may be expected from newbie urologists who are trained in minimally invasive surgery fellowship.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic and laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: A comparison of surgical outcomes from two centres

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to compare the different surgical approaches of two centers on outcomes of live donor laparoscopic nephrectomy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The first 98 patients of each centre who underwent laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) or hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN) were included in the study. The following data were used for analyses: donor age, weight, height, body mass index (BMI), transfusion requirement, operative time, ischemia time and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

Median age, BMI, operation time and estimated blood loss (EBL) was 47.29 years, 27.91 kg/m², 110.73 minutes, and 78.95 mL, respectively. Operation time was significantly shorter in the HALDN group (t=-3.554, p<0.01). EBL was not significantly different between the two groups. The difference in hospitalization time and warm ischemia times (WIT) was not significant between the two surgical technique groups (t=-1.554, t=1.258; p>0.05). No statistically significant difference was detected in the intraoperative and postoperative complication rates between two groups (p>0.05). The postoperative complication rate was 7.14% (n=7) and 6.12% (n=6) in the LDN and HALDN groups, respectively. There were two patients with conversion to open surgery in the HALDN group because of lumbar vein injury.

CONCLUSION

The operative and postoperative outcomes for the two techniques were found to be similar. The HALDN technique preserves the benefits of minimally invasive surgery. In experienced urologic laparoscopy centres both techniques promise similar success rates.

Perioperative Events and Complications in Minimally Invasive Live Donor Nephrectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive live donor nephrectomy has become a fully implemented and accepted procedure. Donors have to be well educated about all risks and details during the informed consent process. For this to be successful, more information regarding short-term outcome is necessary.

METHODS

A literature search was performed; all studies discussing short-term complications after minimally invasive live donor nephrectomy were included. Outcomes evaluated were intraoperative and postoperative complications, conversions, operative and warm ischemia times, blood loss, length of hospital stay, pain score, convalescence, quality of life, and costs.

RESULTS

One hundred ninety articles were included in the systematic review, 41 in the meta-analysis. Conversion rate was 1.1%. Intraoperative complication rate was 2.3%, mainly bleeding (1.5%). Postoperative complications occurred in 7.3% of donors, including infectious complications (2.6%), of which mainly wound infection (1.6%) and bleeding (1.0%). Reported mortality rate was 0.01%. All minimally invasive techniques were comparable with regard to complication or conversion rate.

CONCLUSIONS

The used techniques for minimally invasive live donor nephrectomy are safe and associated with low complication rates and minimal risk of mortality. These data may be helpful to develop a standardized, donor-tailored informed consent procedure for live donor nephrectomy.

Minimally Invasive Surgery for Live Kidney Donors: Techniques and Challenges

Live kidney donation is assuming an increasingly prominent role in kidney transplantation programs. The traditional operative approach has been through an incision in the upper quadrant of the abdomen or in the loin, with the attendant potential postoperative complications associated with a large surgical wound. These problems may act as disincentives to prospective donors. The introduction of laparoscopic donor surgery in 1995 heralded a new era offering reduced postoperative pain and improved cosmetic result. It is hoped that these benefits may counter some disincentives and thereby increase donation rates. Three minimal-access approaches and their advantages and disadvantages are described: classical laparoscopic, hand-assisted laparoscopic, and retroperitoneoscopic surgery. Published reports indicate extensive experience with the first 2 of these approaches and less experience with the latter. All 3 approaches present technical, physiological, and anatomical challenges in the context of retrieving an organ that is fit for transplantation. For minimal-access surgery to be accepted as the procedure of choice for live kidney donors, it must be demonstrated that morbidity is not transferred from donor to recipient when these techniques are used. Some concerns about these procedures are addressed. High-level evidence in the form of randomized controlled trials is generally lacking, but experiences of surgeons and patients suggest that, with appropriate modifications, these techniques are safe for both donors and allografts and also benefit donors' recovery.

[Surgical aspects of living donor nephrectomy]

CONTEXT

Living donor renal transplant surgery has evolved from the classical nephrectomy by lumbotomy to less invasive surgery, the laparoscopic and robotic nephrectomy currently being the most important. It is important to know the available evidence on whether nephrectomy in patients with multiple arteries, right kidney and in obese patients can be performed safely when there is a correct indication.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a review of the different surgical techniques in living donor nephrectomy, adapted to the current surgical evidence and other aspects related to the indication.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic review was made in PubMed (1997-2011). This included previous reviews randomized controlled clinical studies, cohort studies, and meta-analyses of this surgical aspects of living donor nephrectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Currently, there is sufficient evidence to consider living donor laparoscopic nephrectomy as the technique of choice, although the role of hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic technique is still not totally clear. Open surgery techniques using mini-incision are an acceptable alternative for the sites that have not yet implemented laparoscopic surgery. Right kidney nephrectomy, of those cases that present multiple pedicles and in obese donors, is justified in selected cases.

Comparing Surgical Complications of Donors and Recipients in Retroperitoneoscopic versus Mini-Incision Donor Nephrectomy: A Single-Center Experience

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.

Laparoscopic versus open nephrectomy for live kidney donors

BACKGROUND

Waiting lists for kidney transplantation continue to grow and live organ donation has become more important as the number of brain stem dead cadaveric organ donors continues to fall. The major disincentive to potential kidney donors is the pain and morbidity associated with open surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To identify the benefits and harms of using laparoscopic compared to open nephrectomy techniques to recover kidneys from live organ donors.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the online databases CENTRAL (in The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 2), MEDLINE (January 1966 to January 2010) and EMBASE (January 1980 to January 2010) and handsearched textbooks and reference lists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) with open donor nephrectomy (ODN).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts for eligibility, assessed study quality, and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information where necessary.

MAIN RESULTS

Six studies were identified that randomised 596 live kidney donors to either LDN or ODN arms. All studies were assessed as having low or unclear risk of bias for selection bias, allocation bias, incomplete outcome data and selective reporting bias. Four of six studies had high risk of bias for blinding. Various different combinations of techniques were used in each study, resulting in heterogeneity in the results. The conversion rate from LDN to ODN ranged from 1% to 1.8%. LDN was generally found to be associated with reduced analgesia use, shorter hospital stay, and faster return to normal physical functioning. The extracted kidney was exposed to longer warm ischaemia periods (2 to 17 minutes) with no associated short-term consequences. ODN was associated with shorter duration of procedure. For those outcomes that could be meta-analysed there were no significant differences between LDN or ODN for perioperative complications (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.47 to 4.59), reoperations (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.09 to 3.64), early graft loss (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.48), delayed graft function (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.52 to 2.30), acute rejection (RR 1.41, 95 % CI 0.87 to 2.27), ureteric complications (RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.69 to 3.31), kidney function at one year (SMD 0.15, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.41) or graft loss at one year (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.15 to 3.85).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

LDN is associated with less pain compared with open surgery; however, there are equivalent numbers of complications and occurrences of perioperative events that require further intervention. Kidneys obtained using LDN procedures were exposed to longer warm ischaemia periods than ODN-acquired grafts, although this has not been reported as being associated with short-term consequences.

Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: Are ten cases per year enough to reach the quality standards? A report from a single small-volume transplant center

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy is the preferred method of kidney donation in high-volume US transplant centers, but for small transplant programs the question of the minimal case load per year necessary to reach the quality standards is open.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From 1996 to 2007 we performed 130 live kidney donations including 93 laparoscopic donor nephrectomies followed by transplantation in a community hospital with an average case load of 10 laparoscopic cases per year. We compared the results after 37 open and 93 laparoscopic live donor operations with respect to operating time, conversion rate, complications, and recipients' outcome.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in terms of safe outcome of donor patients after open or laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. The mean operating time was significantly shorter (p < 0.001) in the open group (125 min, OG) than in the laparoscopic group (150 min, LG). Mean hospital stay was significantly shorter (p < 0.001) in LG (6.8 days) versus OG (9.7 days). The conversion rate was 3.2% in the LG. Postoperative complication of donors consisted of temporary nerve irritation (two patients) and retroperitoneal hematoma (one patient) in the LG, and wound infection followed by hernia formation (one patient) and ileus 1 year after organ donation (one patient) in the OG. Safe outcome of the recipients after open (RaOD) or laparoscopic donation (RaLD) was similar. Uneventful transplantation occurred in 94.6% of the RaOD and in 92.5% of the RaLD. One kidney was lost due to renal vein thrombosis (RaLD). Mean postoperative creatinine after 4 weeks showed no difference between RaOD (1.6 mg/dl) and RaLD (1.7 mg/dl).

CONCLUSION

Approximately ten cases per year may be enough to ensure safety and quality of laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy.

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.

Comparison of Graft Survival in Live Donor Nephrectomy: Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic v Open Procedures

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is associated with decreased morbidity while maintaining similar graft function in short-term follow-up compared with open surgery. We investigated hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN) in comparison with standard open donor nephrectomy (ODN) in living donors.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Two hundred patients who received a living-donor kidney and were followed up for more than 1 year were enrolled. The procedure was performed exclusively on the left kidney through either HALDN or ODN from January 2001 to July 2004. The probability of graft survival was determined using the Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariate analysis using a Cox regression hazard model was performed to identify the predictors of graft survival.

RESULTS

The mean operative time, estimated blood loss, warm ischemic time, and operation-related complications were compared. There was no difference in graft function. The cumulative graft survival at 1 and 3 years was similar in the two groups: 98% and 97%. Episodes of acute rejection were an independent predictor of graft survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy in living donors is safe and effective with results similar to those of open nephrectomy with regard to graft function.

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.

Hand-assisted Laparoscopy Versus Conventional Median Laparotomy for Aortobifemoral Bypass for Severe Aorto-iliac Occlusive Disease: A Prospective Randomised Study

OBJECTIVES

To demonstrate that hand-assisted laparoscopy for aortofemoral bypass for severe aorto-iliac occlusive disease reduces morbidity with earlier recovery of bowel function and shorter in-hospital stay.

DESIGN

Randomised controlled trial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-six consecutive patients with severe aorto-iliac occlusive disease (TASK C/D) without history of major abdominal surgery necessitating an aortobifemoral bypass were randomised between a hand-assisted laparoscopic (HALS) approach and a conventional medial laparotomy. Operative data, early recovery data, quality of life and vascular outcome were analysed.

RESULTS

No significant differences in operative data were found. Fluid and solid diet were resumed earlier (28.8 hrs vs. 76.9 hrs; p = 0.016) (45.6 hrs vs. 105.6 hrs; p = 0.02) and in-hospital stay was shorter (7.5 vs. 8.9 days; p = 0.005) in the HALS group. Six weeks post-operatively social functioning measured by the SF-36 survey score was better in patients randomised to HALS (p=0.023).

CONCLUSIONS

HALS is a less invasive approach for aortofemoral bypass.

Single-Surgeon Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy and Renal Transplantation

OBJECTIVES

To demonstrate the feasibility of single-surgeon performance of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy and recipient living renal transplantation.

METHODS

Fifteen consecutive donor-recipient pairs were performed from August 2003 and July 2004 by a single surgeon at one institution. Routine donor and recipient outcome measures were prospectively assessed.

RESULTS

The mean donor height and weight was 66 in. and 151 lb, respectively. All donors underwent left nephrectomy. Renal arteries were paired in 3 (20%) of 15 donors. No donors underwent conversion or transfusion. No donor complications occurred. The mean operating room time, estimated blood loss, and hospital stay was 195 minutes, 200 mL, and 2 days, respectively. The mean recipient height and weight was 65 in. and 158 lb, respectively. The mean recipient age was 46 years (range 21 to 69). Of the 15 recipients, 3 (20%) had previously undergone transplantation. The mean operating room time, blood loss, and hospital stay for the recipients was 155 minutes, 100 mL, and 4.5 days, respectively. No recipient operative complications occurred. All allografts functioned immediately. The median recipient creatinine nadir was 1.1 mg/dL. Of the 15 recipients, 3 (20%) had postoperative complications during follow-up, including reintubation in 1, pneumonia in 1, and acute rejection in 1. The patient and graft survival rate were both 100%, and the mean serum creatinine was 1.16 mg/dL at a mean and median follow-up of 187 and 164 days (range 18 to 350), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

We report the first series evaluating the performance of single-surgeon laparoscopic donor nephrectomy and living renal transplantation. Single-surgeon performance of both laparoscopic donor nephrectomy and living renal transplantation is technically feasible and logistically straightforward. The donor and recipient outcomes are consistent with those reported in published reports.

Open and laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy in Switzerland: a retrospective assessment of clinical outcomes and the motivation to donate

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic living kidney nephrectomy is thought to be associated with reduced morbidity, when compared to open nephrectomy. The purpose of this study was to explore the impact of these techniques on donors' clinical outcomes, satisfaction and motivation to donate.

METHODS

Clinical outcomes were retrospectively compared in 152 open (n = 71) or laparoscopic (n = 81) donor procedures. Donor satisfaction and motivation were assessed with a self-administered questionnaire.

RESULTS

The complication rate was the same with both procedures and the majority of complications were mild. Laparoscopy was significantly less painful and resulted in an insignificantly faster return to active life. More than 80% of the donors volunteered to donate without pressure. Worries about future health status, pain or scars were not important in the decision to donate. Similarly, only 15% considered the surgical procedure as instrumental for their decision. Few donors currently worried about their health with one kidney and more than 95% of the donors in both groups stated that they would give their kidney again.

CONCLUSIONS

Living donor nephrectomy is safe, regardless of the procedure used. Although the laparoscopic nephrectomy offers clear short-term benefits over the open nephrectomy, donors' satisfaction was excellent with both surgical approaches. Moreover, the type of procedure did not seem to influence their decision to donate.

Hand-assisted right laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy

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.

Total laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: a 6-year experience

BACKGROUND

Since the introduction of the laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy in 1995, attempts have been made to depart from the total laparoscopic approach to the hand-assisted approach to decrease surgical time and complications. We present our 6-year experience with the total laparoscopic approach.

METHODS

Between December 1998 and November 2004 there were 168 total laparoscopic live donor nephrectomies performed at our institution. There were 163 left nephrectomies and 5 right nephrectomies.

RESULTS

The procedure was performed in a systematic approach. The surgical time deceased from an average of 2:27 hours in the first year to 1:34 hours in the last year of the study. The overall average warm ischemia time was 3.5 minutes. Major bleeding requiring conversion to an open procedure occurred in 2 (1.2%) donors. Minor bleeding that was controlled laparoscopically occurred in 9 (5.4%) donors. Degloving of the renal capsule occurred in 2 (1.2%) donors with no consequences. Minor mesenteric rent occurred in 7 (4.2%) donors. All mesenteric complications were recognized and repaired laparoscopically. No ureteral or bowel injuries occurred. There were no mortalities. Eighty-three percent of donors were discharged the next day.

CONCLUSIONS

Total laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy is safe. It was performed successfully in 98.8% of donors with a short surgical time, low morbidity, and 0% mortality.

200 Consecutive Hand Assisted Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomies: Evolution of Operative Technique and Outcomes

PURPOSE

Despite the popularity of hand assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy published experience is less than that with standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy and few critical assessments of operative maneuvers have been described.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We describe the impact of changes in operative technique made by a single surgeon during 200 hand assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomies.

RESULTS

With a mean operative time of 229 minutes and hospital stay of 1.9 days the rates of conversion to open surgery, intraoperative complications and major postoperative complications were 1%, 1.5% and 6%, respectively. Lasting changes in technique were dissection of a ureteral/gonadal packet, bipolar cautery use on gonadal/adrenal/lumbar veins and resting the kidney before removal. The incidence of ureteral complications decreased from 8% to 5.1% with dissection of the ureter in conjunction with the gonadal vein rather than isolating it. Warm ischemia time decreased from a mean of 186 to 143 seconds with bipolar electrocautery instead of clips to control gonadal/adrenal/lumbar veins. After starting to rest the kidney before removal the incidence of primary graft nonfunction and delayed function decreased from 6.7% to 0% and 30% to 11.8%, respectively, with a corresponding improvement in 2-year graft survival from 83% to 95%.

CONCLUSIONS

This large series of hand assisted donor laparoscopic nephrectomies with a mean followup approaching 3 years demonstrates that the procedure is safe for the donor and procures a good specimen. Decreases in ureteral complications, warm ischemia time and graft dysfunction might be attributable to specific changes in our operative technique.

The direct and indirect economic costs incurred by living kidney donors-a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Despite the many benefits of living donor kidney transplantation, economic consequences can result for donors. We reviewed studies which quantified the direct and indirect costs incurred by living kidney donors, in order to understand the strengths and limitations of existing literature.

METHODS

We identified relevant studies in MEDLINE, EMBASE and ECONOLIT bibliographic databases, in the Science Citation Index and study reference lists. Any study which reported at least one cost relevant to donors was included. The accuracy of abstracted data was verified by two reviewers and reported in year 2004 US dollars.

RESULTS

Thirty-five studies from 12 countries described costs incurred by individuals who donated between the years 1964 and 2003. No study comprehensively quantified all relevant expenses-the sum of select costs considered in one US study averaged Dollars 837 per donor and ranged from Dollars 0 to 28,906. Travel and/or accommodation costs were incurred by 9-99% of donors, and were higher in countries with a larger land mass. Post-discharge analgesics were required by 4-24% of donors, but prescription costs were not reported. Between 14 and 30% of donors incurred costs for lost income, with an average loss of Dollars 3386 in one study from the UK and Dollars 682 in another study from the Netherlands. Costs for dependent care were incurred by 9-44% of donors, while costs for domestic help were incurred by 8% of donors.

CONCLUSIONS

Donors incur many types of costs attributable to kidney donation and the total costs are certainly higher than previously reported. To guide informed consent and fair reimbursement policies, further data on all relevant costs, preferably from a detailed prospective multi-centre cohort study, are required.

Retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy: donor outcome and complication rate in comparison with three different techniques

Four surgical techniques for living donor nephrectomy were analyzed retrospectively in terms of perioperative outcome and early complication rate. A total of 182 donor nephrectomies including 69 open (OLDN), 14 fully laparoscopic (LDN), 34 hand-assisted laparoscopic (HLDN) and 65 retroperitoneoscopic (RLDN) nephrectomies were analyzed. There was a significant difference in mean operating time (OPT) between the OLDN (160 min) and RLDN (150 min) as compared to the LDN (212 min) and HLDN group (192 min) (P < 0.001). Mean warm ischemia time (WIT) was significantly shorter with OLDN (114 s), RLDN (121 s) and HLDN (128 s) when compared to LDN (238 s) (P < 0.001). Major complication rate was comparable among the groups. Independent of the preferred technique, donor nephrectomy is associated with complication rates. RLDN is comparable to OLDN in terms of OPT, WIT. Learning endoscopic donor nephrectomy could be associated with a higher complication rate.

Malignancy after transplantation

As newer immunosuppressive regimens have steadily reduced the incidence of acute rejection and have extended the life expectancy of allograft recipients, posttransplant malignancy has become an important cause of mortality. In fact, it is expected that cancer will surpass cardiovascular complications as the leading cause of death in transplant patients within the next 2 decades. An understanding of the underlying pathobiology and how to minimize cancer risks in transplant recipients are essential. The etiology of posttransplant malignancy is believed to be multifactorial and likely involves impaired immunosurveillance of neoplastic cells as well as depressed antiviral immune activity with a number of common posttransplant malignancies being viral-related. Although calcineurin inhibitors and azathioprine have been linked with posttransplant malignancies, newer agents such as mycophenolate mofetil and sirolimus have not and indeed may have antitumor properties. Long-term data are needed to determine if the use of these agents will ultimately lower the mortality due to malignancy for transplant recipients.

Hand-assisted Laparoscopic Aortobifemoral Bypass for Occlusive Disease. Early and Mid-term Results

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the early and mid-term results of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) for aorto-iliac reconstruction.

DESIGN

Prospective survey.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between February 2002 and January 2004, 46 patients received an aortobifemoral bypass for advanced occlusive disease by HALS.

RESULT

There was one conversion to open surgery. Mortality was 4.5%. The median return to solid oral diet took 36 h (24-182), the median hospital stay was 5 days (3-26). Primary patency rate at 1 year was 97.5%. The incidence of incisional hernia was 19.5%.

CONCLUSIONS

HALS aorto-iliac reconstruction should be considered as a minimal invasive technique with good early and mid-term results.

Laparoscopy for living donor nephrectomy - particularities of the currently applied techniques

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.

Robots en cirugía general: presente y futuro

Robotic surgery is an emerging technology. We began to use this technique in 2000, after it was approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Our preliminary experience was satisfactory. We report 4 years' experience of using this technique in our institution. Between August 2000 and December 2004, 399 patients underwent robotic surgery using the Da Vinci system. We performed 110 gastric bypass procedures, 30 Lap band, 59 Heller myotomies, 12 Nissen fundoplications, 6 epiphrenic diverticula, 18 total esophagectomies, 3 esophageal leiomyoma resections, 1 pyloroplasty, 2 gastrojejunostomies, 2 transduodenal sphincteroplasties, 10 adrenalectomies and 145 living-related donor nephrectomies. Operating times for fundoplications and Lap band were longer. After the learning curve, the operating times and morbidity of the remaining procedures were considerably reduced. Robot-assisted surgery allows advanced laparoscopic procedures to be performed with enhanced results given that it reduces the learning curve as measured by operating time and morbidity.

Retroperitoneoscopic Donor Nephrectomy: A Retrospective, Non-Randomized Comparison of Early Complications, Donor and Recipient Outcome with the Standard Open Approach

OBJECTIVES

We retrospectively performed a comparative analysis of retroperitoneoscopic and open donor nephrectomy in terms of donor complications, as well as recipient complications and functional graft outcome.

METHODS

A total of 134 donor nephrectomies including 69 open (ODN) and 65 retroperitoneoscopic (RDN) nephrectomies was analyzed retrospectively. Both groups were comparable in terms of age, body mass index (BMI), operating time (OPT), warm ischemia time (WIT) and blood loss.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences with respect to recipient outcome, mean values for age, BMI, OPT and cold ischemia time (CIT). The overall donor complication rate did not differ. Early functional graft follow-up showed significant differences in 24 h-urine output between the two groups (p<0.001), but serum creatinine was comparable after 7, 30, 180 and 365 days. The early rejection rate in the recipients was similar in the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy (RDN) provides comparable perioperative features, such as operating time, warm ischemia time (WIT) and overall complication rate to the open donor nephrectomy (ODN). Additionally, it has no negative impact on recipients' operating time, graft ischemia and early graft function.

Correlation of preoperative three-dimensional magnetic resonance angiography with intraoperative findings in laparoscopic renal surgery

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Contrast-enhanced three-dimensional magnetic resonance angiography (3D-MRA) with image reconstruction has important applications in laparoscopic urologic surgery. We now use 3D-MRA as part of our preoperative evaluation in selected patients undergoing laparoscopic donor nephrectomy, pyeloplasty, radical nephrectomy, and partial nephrectomy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From June 2001 to December 2002, 50 patients underwent preoperative 3D-MRA at 1.5 T prior to laparoscopic renal surgery. In general, preoperative 3D-MRA was obtained for donor nephrectomies and pyeloplasties and for cases where prior imaging suggested a possible vascular anomaly. Patients who underwent preoperative imaging included those having donor nephrectomy (N = 28), pyeloplasty (N = 12), radical nephrectomy (N = 5), partial nephrectomy (N = 3), and other laparoscopic renal procedures (N = 2). The 3D-MRA studies were interpreted by one radiologist, and all laparoscopic cases were performed by one of two surgeons. The findings of 3D-MRA were correlated with the intraoperative findings with special attention to aberrant vasculature, including duplicated renal arteries or veins, accessory vessels, or crossing vessels.

RESULTS

Among patients undergoing laparoscopic donor nephrectomy, 3D-MRA correctly predicted the number of renal vessels in 27 of 28 cases (96%), including all 3 cases of left retroaortic renal vein. Also, 3DMRA correctly predicted the presence or absence of a crossing vessel in 10 of 12 cases (83%) of laparoscopic pyeloplasty. The imaging study also correctly predicted the number of hilar vessels in all five cases of radical nephrectomy, all three cases of partial nephrectomy, and both cases of other renal operations. Overall, 3D-MRA correctly defined the renal hilar anatomy in 48 of 50 patients, for an overall accuracy of 96%.

CONCLUSIONS

Three-dimensional MRA findings correlate well (96%) with intraoperative findings in laparoscopic renal surgery. The imaging study provides exquisite vascular detail and is highly accurate, making it sufficient imaging prior to laparoscopic donor nephrectomy and useful for pyeloplasty and other complex renal operations.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic and open living donor nephrectomy in Korea

BACKGROUND

We compared the results of hand-assisted laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy (LLDN) and conventional open living donor nephrectomy (OLDN).

METHODS

The clinical data on 49 hand-assisted LLDN and 21 OLDN on the left side performed at two institutions in Korea from January 2001 to February 2003 were reviewed. Demographic data of donors and recipients were similar in the two groups.

RESULTS

There was one conversion to an open procedure due to bleeding in the LLDN group. The median operation times (180 min in LLDN versus 170 min in OLDN) and warm ischemic times (2.5 min in LLDN versus 2.0 min in OLDN) in the two groups were similar. The estimated mean blood loss, duration of hospital stay and complication rate was also similar in the two groups. The LLDN group reported less pain (visual analog scale) postoperatively (4.1 versus 5.3), but this was not significant (P=0.058). The time to oral intake in the LLDN group was significantly longer by an average of 1 day (P=0.001). Return to work was sooner in the LLDN group (4.0 weeks versus 6.0 weeks; P=0.026). The recipient graft function was equivalent between the two groups. Hand-assisted LLDN appears to be a safe and effective alternative to OLDN.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that this technique may give the ability provide grafts of similar quality to OLDN, while extending to the donors the advantages of a traditional LLDN procedure.

Laparoscopic Right Donor Nephrectomy: A Large Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic procurement of right donor kidneys is frequently avoided or performed using hand-assist devices because of concerns regarding donor safety, adequate exposure, and vessel length. The present study describes the authors' large series of right donor nephrectomies performed laparoscopically without the use of hand ports or other manual assist devices.

METHODS

The authors retrospectively analyzed all right laparoscopic donor nephrectomies performed at their center from November 1, 1999, to February 20, 2004. Study variables included operative times, blood loss, hospital stay, graft function, and donor and recipient complications. Left donor nephrectomies performed during the same period served as controls.

RESULTS

Of 387 laparoscopic kidney procurements, 54 (14 %) were right nephrectomies. Blood loss, extraction times, length of stay, and overall complication rates were similar between right and left donor groups. The mean operative time in the right nephrectomy group was significantly shorter than in the left nephrectomy group (169 +/- 25 and 186 +/- 29 min, respectively; P = 0.003). Graft function 1 month after transplantation and the incidence of delayed graft function were similar in both groups. There was one graft loss caused by thrombosis in the left nephrectomy group; other graft-related complications in the recipients were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This large single-center experience demonstrates that laparoscopic right donor nephrectomy performed without hand-assist devices is safe and yields kidneys with excellent function. The authors conclude that selection of the appropriate kidney for donation using this approach can be based on the same criteria that have traditionally governed open donor nephrectomy.

Robotically assisted donor nephrectomy for kidney transplantation

The application of minimally invasive techniques in the field of transplant surgery is expanding the number of living-related donor nephrectomies. In 2003, the number of living kidney donors exceeded the number of cadaveric donors. The laparoscopic techniques already have been described extensively. Our experience with robotic donor nephrectomy began in October 2000. In this article, we describe the surgical technique for living-related donor nephrectomies using robotic technology (computer-enhanced surgery), as well as the most important considerations regarding the pre- and postoperative management of this group of patients.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic right donor nephrectomy: surgical technique

Many centers have adopted laparoscopic and hand-assisted laparoscopic (HAL) techniques for live donor nephrectomy. Currently, the majority of laparoscopic living donor kidneys are procured from the left side because of the longer renal vein and improved transplantation. However, indications exist for right donor nephrectomy. We present our technique of HAL right-sided donor nephrectomy. A key feature of our dissection is wide mobilization of adjacent structures to achieve good exposure of the right kidney and inferior vena cava. In addition, the use of the hand permits optimal positioning of the kidney for division of the renal vessels with the vascular stapler. At the time of division of the renal vein, the stapler is placed on the wall of the inferior vena cava in order to gain maximal length. This technique has allowed HAL right-sided donor nephrectomy to be performed safely when indicated.

Laparoscopic (vs open) live donor nephrectomy: a UNOS database analysis of early graft function and survival

The impact of laparoscopic (lap) live donor nephrectomy on early graft function and survival remains controversial. We compared 2734 kidney transplants (tx) from lap donors and 2576 tx from open donors reported to the U.S. United Network for Organ Sharing from 11/1999 to 12/2000. Early function quality (>40 mL urine and/or serum creatinine [creat] decline >25% during the first 24 h post-tx) and delayed function incidence were similar for both groups. Significantly more lap (vs. open) txs, however, had discharge creats greater than 1.4 mg/dL (49.2% vs. 44.9%, p = 0.002) and 2.0 mg/dL (21.8% vs. 19.5%, p = 0.04). But all later creats, early and late rejection, as well as graft survival at 1 year (94.4%, lap tx vs. 94.1%, open tx) were similar for lap and open recipients. Our data suggests that lap nephrectomy is associated with slower early graft function. Rejection rates and short-term graft survival, however, were similar for lap and open graft recipients. Further prospective studies with longer follow up are necessary to assess the potential impact of the laparoscopic procurement mode on early graft function and long-term outcome.