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

Evaluation of postoperative kidney function after administration of 6% hydroxyethyl starch during living-donor nephrectomy for transplantation

PURPOSE

We aimed to investigate whether 6% HES 130/0.4 was associated with postoperative reduction of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) in donor patients who underwent nephrectomy for living kidney transplantation.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 213 living kidney transplant donors treated at Kyushu University Hospital in Japan from April 2014 to March 2018. Patients who were administered 6% HES 130/0.4 were allocated in the HES group (n = 108), and those who were not were allocated in the control group (n = 105). The postoperative decrements in estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFRs) from preoperative values were calculated on postoperative days (PODs) 1, 3, and 14. Decline in kidney function (DKF) according to the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) classification were analyzed by multivariable-adjusted ordinal logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (ORs) for postoperative DKF.

RESULTS

In HES group, administration amount of HES was median 9.4 [interquartile range: 8.2-14.3] ml/kg. Postoperative decrements in eGFR were similar in the control and HES groups on POD 1 (control group: mean 32.0 vs. HES group: 33.0 mL/min/1.73 m²), same as POD 3 (21.1 vs. 22.4 mL/min/1.73 m²) and POD 14 (26.0 vs. 25.9 mL/min/1.73 m²), even after adjusting for confounding factors. The multivariable-adjusted ORs for postoperative DKF did not significantly increase in the HES group on POD 1 (OR: 0.88), POD 3 (OR: 0.96), and POD 14 (OR: 0.52) compared with the control group.

CONCLUSION

Six percent HES 130/0.4 is not associated with postoperative renal dysfunction in donor patients undergoing nephrectomy for kidney transplantation.

The impact of intraoperative fluid management during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy on donor and recipient outcomes

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative fluid management during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) may have a significant effect on donor and recipient outcomes. We sought to quantify variability in fluid management and investigate its impact on donor and recipient outcomes.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients who underwent LDN from July 2011 to January 2016 with paired kidney recipients at a single center was performed. Patients were divided into tertiles of intraoperative fluid management (standard, high, and aggressive). Donor and recipient demographics, intraoperative data, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

Overall, 413 paired kidney donors and recipients were identified. Intraoperative fluid management (mL/h) was highly variable with no correlation to donor weight (kg) (R = 0.017). The aggressive fluid management group had significantly lower recipient creatinine levels on postoperative day 1. However, no significant differences were noted in creatinine levels out to 6 months between groups. No significant differences were noted in recipient postoperative complications, graft loss, and death. There was a significant increase (P < 0.01) in the number of total donor complications in the aggressive fluid management group.

CONCLUSIONS

Aggressive fluid management during LDN does not improve recipient outcomes and may worsen donor outcomes compared to standard fluid management.

What is the evidence for the use of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum? A systematic review

Background

Laparoscopic surgery has several advantages when compared to open surgery, including faster postoperative recovery and lower pain scores. However, for laparoscopy, a pneumoperitoneum is required to create workspace between the abdominal wall and intraabdominal organs. Increased intraabdominal pressure may also have negative implications on cardiovascular, pulmonary, and intraabdominal organ functionings. To overcome these negative consequences, several trials have been performed comparing low- versus standard-pressure pneumoperitoneum.

Methods

A systematic review of all randomized controlled clinical trials and observational studies comparing low- versus standard-pressure pneumoperitoneum.

Results and conclusions

Quality assessment showed that the overall quality of evidence was moderate to low. Postoperative pain scores were reduced by the use of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum. With appropriate perioperative measures, the use of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum does not seem to have clinical advantages as compared to standard pressure on cardiac and pulmonary function. Although there are indications that low-pressure pneumoperitoneum is associated with less liver and kidney injury when compared to standard-pressure pneumoperitoneum, this does not seem to have clinical implications for healthy individuals. The influence of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum on adhesion formation, anastomosis healing, tumor metastasis, intraocular and intracerebral pressure, and thromboembolic complications remains uncertain, as no human clinical trials have been performed. The influence of pressure on surgical conditions and safety has not been established to date. In conclusion, the most important benefit of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum is lower postoperative pain scores, supported by a moderate quality of evidence. However, the quality of surgical conditions and safety of the use of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum need to be established, as are the values and preferences of physicians and patients regarding the potential benefits and risks. Therefore, the recommendation to use low-pressure pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopy is weak, and more studies are required.

Intraoperative care of the transplant patient

Patients undergoing abdominal organ transplantation have extensive comorbidities that can affect many organ systems including the cardiovascular system. Intraoperative anesthesia care can be very challenging and requires thorough understanding of the disease specific physiology as well as knowledge of the comorbidities and the surgical procedure. There is no approach to intraoperative anesthesia care that will work equally well for every center but standardization of protocols for each transplant center will improve patient care and safety and ultimately contributes to superior outcomes. In this article we provide background and suggestions that will help with the development of standardized protocols for intraoperative management.