Comparison of hand-assisted laparoscopy versus open and laparoscopic techniques in urology procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Usefulness of Hand-assisted Laparoscopic Restorative Proctocolectomy for Ulcerative Colitis in the Era of Laparoscopic Surgery - A Single-center Observational Study

Objectives

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) combines the benefits of laparoscopic surgery with the tactile feedback from open surgery. In the current era of laparoscopic surgery, the significance of HALS as a technical transition has diminished. This study clarified the usefulness of HALS in restorative proctocolectomy (RPC) for ulcerative colitis (UC) in the era of laparoscopic surgery.

Methods

The 212 patients who underwent RPC with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis between 2007 and 2023 were included in this study. The patients were divided into three groups, open surgery (OS), HALS, and conventional laparoscopic surgery (LAP), and their characteristics, surgical outcomes, surgical complications, and functional outcomes were compared.

Results

The number of surgical techniques was OS in 21 cases, HALS in 184 cases, and LAP in 7 cases. The number of surgeons was two for OS and HALS, and four for LAP, with OS and HALS having fewer surgeons than LAP. The length of the skin incision was 13, 7, and 3 cm for OS, HALS, and LAP, respectively, and the operation times was 250, 286, and 576 minutes for OS, HALS, and LAP, respectively, with LAP having the longest operation time. The postoperative complications and function did not differ markedly among the three groups.

Conclusions

In RPC for UC, HALS involved fewer surgeons and a shorter operative time than LAP. Even in the era of laparoscopic surgery, HALS remains a useful option, especially when a shorter operation time is required or when the number of available surgeons is insufficient.

Robotic donor nephrectomy: optimizing outcomes beyond the limitations of laparoscopy

BACKGROUND

Robotic donor nephrectomy (RDN) has emerged as a safe alternate to laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN), offering improved visualization, instrument dexterity and ergonomics. There is still concern about how to safely transition from LDN to RDN.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of 150 consecutive living donor operations (75 LDN and 75 RDN) at our center, comparing the first 75 RDN's with the last 75 LDN's performed prior to the initiation of the robotic transplant program. Operative times and complications were used as surrogates of efficiency and safety, respectively, to estimate the learning curve with RDN.

RESULTS

RDN was associated with a longer total operative time (RDN 182 vs LDN 144 min; P < 0.0001) but a significantly shorter post-operative length of stay (RDN 1.8 vs LDN 2.1 days; P = 0.0213). Donor complications and recipient outcomes were the same between both groups. Learning curve of RDN was estimated to be about 30 cases.

CONCLUSIONS

RDN is a safe alternate to LDN with acceptable donor morbidity and no negative impact on recipient outcomes even during the early part of the RDN learning curve. Surgeon preferences for the robotic approach compared to traditional laparoscopy will require further scrutiny to improve ergonomics and operative efficiency.

Comparison of modified hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic laparoscopic nephrectomy and open nephrectomy in patients with benign inflammatory non-functioning kidney diseases

Background

To assess the validity and feasibility of the modified hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic laparoscopic nephrectomy (MHARLN) in patients with benign inflammatory non-functioning kidney diseases.

Methods

We retrospectively compared the data of 223 patients who underwent an MHARLN (n=142) or an open nephrectomy (ON) (n=81) with benign inflammatory non-functioning diseases between January 2014 and October 2019 at our hospital. Patients' demographic data, perioperative outcomes, preoperative and postoperative inflammatory data, and postoperative complications were reviewed.

Results

The basic demographic data of patients were similar between the 2 groups. The mean operative times for the MHARLN and the ON were 135 and 143 minutes (P=0.181), respectively. The first time at which postoperative ambulation occurred, the visual analog pain scale (VAS) score before discharge and the postoperative complication rate were similar in both groups. However, compared to the MHARLN, the ON was associated with a more severe inflammatory response on the first day after surgery (P=0.045), higher estimated blood loss (309.8 vs. 139.6 mL; P=0.036), more peritoneal ruptures (19.8% vs. 9.2%; P=0.024), higher intraoperative transfusion (14.82% vs. 4.93%; P=0.011), higher VAS scores 24 hours after surgery (5.9 vs. 5.2; P=0.002), additional analgesic use (35.8% vs. 21.8%; P=0.024), and longer hospital stays (5.3 vs. 4.6 days; P=0.048). Before a liquid diet was commenced in the MHARLN and ON groups, the mean time was 1.2 and 1.5 days, respectively (P=0.004).

Conclusions

When performed by a skilled laparoscopic surgeon, the use of the MHARLN in patients with benign inflammatory non-functioning kidney diseases is reliable and safe. The MHARLN may help to treat challenging cases and result in less trauma successfully.

​Venous anomalies in renal transplantation: an accessory left-sided IVC in a live kidney donor

Duplication of the inferior vena cava (IVC) resulting in an accessory left-sided IVC is a relatively rare vascular anomaly with a reported prevalence of 0.7%. Radiologically, a duplicated left-sided IVC is usually seen as a continuation of the left common iliac vein, crossing anterior to the aorta at the level of the renal vein to join the right-sided IVC. We present a rare case in which an accessory left-sided IVC was discovered intraoperatively, in a 47-year-old living donor, posing significant intraoperative challenges regarding extraction and subsequent transplantation.

First Canadian experience with robotic laparoendoscopic single-site vs. standard laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy: A prospective comparative study

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to compare the outcomes of robotic laparoendoscopic single-site living donor nephrectomy (R-LESS LDN) vs. standard laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy (LLDN).

METHODS

Between October 2013 and November 2015, 39 patients were allocated to either standard LLDN (n=25) or R-LESS LDN (n=14). Patient demographics, perioperative outcomes, analgesic requirement, visual analogue scale of pain at postoperative days 1, 3, 7, and 30, and a health-related quality of life and body image questionnaire were prospectively collected.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in demographics and intraoperative outcomes between the two cohorts. The R-LESS LDN cohort had lower analgesic requirement (p=0.002) and lower visual pain scores on days 1 and 3 (p=0.001). Additionally, body image and satisfaction scores in the R-LESS group were also superior compared to the LLDN cohort (p=0.008). There was no significant difference in the postoperative complications according to the Clavien-Dindo system. Recipient graft functional outcomes were equivalent.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first evidence that R-LESS LDN is safe and associated with comparable surgical and early functional outcomes compared to LLDN, while pain, donor body image, and satisfaction scores were improved compared to LLDN.

Experience and Security of the Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Nephrectomy of a Living Donor in a Public Health Center

BACKGROUND

Hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy (HALDN) is currently the procedure of choice for obtaining living donor kidneys for transplantation. In our institution, it has been the standard procedure for 5 years. Previous studies have shown the same function of the graft as that obtained by open surgery, with a lower rate of bleeding and no differences in complications. We sought to demonstrate the experience and safety of HALDN compared with open donor nephrectomy in healthy donors for kidney transplantation.

METHODS

A retrospective analytical observational study was conducted, reviewing the records of the living donors for kidney transplant undergoing open donor nephrectomy or HALDN in our center from March 1, 2009, to March 1, 2016. Renal function was assessed by the estimated glomerular filtration rate by the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease method before and after donation, as well as bleeding (mL), and complications (according to Clavien), performing a comparative analysis between the two techniques using parametric or nonparametric tests.

RESULTS

A total of 179 living donor nephrectomies were performed during the study period-31 open donor nephrectomy (17.3%) and 148 HALDN (82.7%)-without relevant baseline differences, except for creatinine. HALDN has a shorter surgical time (156,473 ± 87.75 minutes vs 165,484 ± 69.95 minutes) and less bleeding (244.59 ± 416.08 mL vs 324.19 ± 197.986 mL) and a shorter duration of hospital stay (3.74 ± 1.336 days vs 4.75 ± 1.226 days). There were no significant differences in surgical complications at 30 days, or graft loss reported; there were 3 conversions (1.7%) from the HALDN to the open technique. There were no differences in renal function in the donors or recipients at the 5th day or the month after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic nephrectomy has replaced open surgery as the gold standard for living kidney donors. HALDN is a safe and feasible procedure when compared with open donor nephrectomy, achieving a shorter surgical time with less bleeding, and no difference in the number of complications. This procedure lowers costs by decreasing the duration of the hospital stay, making is feasible to perform it at any institution with appropriately trained personnel.

Laparoscopic and hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

To compare the perioperative outcomes of hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN) and pure LDN, as HALDN and LDN are the two most widely used techniques of DN to treat end-stage renal disease.

Methods

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we performed a literature search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane from 01/01/1995 to 31/12/2014. The primary outcome was conversion to an open procedure. Secondary outcomes were warm ischaemia time (WIT), operation time (OT), estimated blood loss (EBL), complications, and length of stay (LOS). Data analysed were presented as odds ratios (ORs) or weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), I², and P values. Subgroup analysis was performed.

Results

There were 24 studies included in the meta-analysis; three randomised controlled trials (RCTs), one randomised pilot study, two prospective, and 18 retrospective cohort studies. There were no differences in conversion to an open procedure between the two techniques for both RCTs (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.06, 2.90; I² = 0%, P < 0.001) and cohort studies (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.63, 1.78; I² = 0%, P = 0.84). WIT was shorter for the HALDN (-41.79 s, 95% CI -71.85, -11.74; I² = 96%, P = 0.006), as was the OT (-26.32 min, 95% CI -40.67, -11.97; I² = 95%, P < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in EBL, complications or LOS.

Conclusion

There is little statistical evidence to recommend one technique. HALDN is associated with a shorter WIT and OT. LDN has equal safety to HALDN. Further studies are required.

Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Nephrectomy for Live Donor Kidney Transplantation

INTRODUCTION

The live donor nephrectomy is an unusual surgical procedure as it is performed on healthy individuals. It is important to make the procedure as safe as possible without compromising the health of the donor and graft function.

JUSTIFICATION

In Mexico during 2014, 2610 kidney transplantations performed, and 1862 grafts were from living donors.

OBJECTIVE

We describe our experience with hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy on live donors for kidney transplantation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We present a descriptive and observational study in which all living donors who completed the study protocol for renal transplantation are included.

RESULTS

From September 2006 to July 2015, there were 238 hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomies with live donors; 227 (95.37%) were performed on the left side and 11 (4.63%) on the right side. Of donors, 54.1% were females. The average values for the variables analyzed were age 38.17 years, 25.94 BMI, creatinine 0.82-1.13 mg/dL pre- and postoperative month respectively, length of stay 4.95 (range 2-8), warm ischemia 5.07 (range 3-13) minutes, surgical time 168.85 minutes (range 90-306), and transsurgical bleeding 139 055 mL (range 25-650). One patient was reoperated for abdominal pain and bloating without evidence of pathology, attributing it to metabolic ileus. Two patients were converted to open surgery; 1 by technical problems with the laparoscopic equipment and the second by bleeding from the renal vein, both with good results.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic nephrectomy is a safe method that allows kidney donors to have a speedy recovery without modifying the survivals of renal grafts.

Laparascopic nephrectomy: different techniques and approaches

Nephrectomy is, perhaps, one of the techniques in which laparoscopic approach has been widely used. It has quickly evolved since Clayman introduced it in 1990 with a renal tumor. Since then, its goodness has been extrapolated to most entities that require surgical removal of the kidney. We review the current most discussed aspects referred to the main laparoscopic nephrectomy techniques (simple nephrectomy, nephroureterectomy, radical, and nephron-sparing nephrectomy) and particularities of this approach.

Predicting Length of Stay Following Radical Nephrectomy Using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database

PURPOSE

Length of stay is frequently used to measure the quality of health care, although its predictors are not well studied in urology. We created a predictive model of length of stay after nephrectomy, focusing on preoperative variables.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used the NSQIP database to evaluate patients older than 18 years who underwent nephrectomy without concomitant procedures from 2007 to 2011. Preoperative factors analyzed for univariate significance in relation to actual length of stay were then included in a multivariable linear regression model. Backward elimination of nonsignificant variables resulted in a final model that was validated in an institutional external patient cohort.

RESULTS

Of the 1,527 patients in the NSQIP database 864 were included in the training cohort after exclusions for concomitant procedures or lack of data. Median length of stay was 3 days in the training and validation sets. Univariate analysis revealed 27 significant variables. Backward selection left a final model including the variables age, laparoscopic vs open approach, and preoperative hematocrit and albumin. For every additional year in age, point decrease in hematocrit and point decrease in albumin the length of stay lengthened by a factor of 0.7%, 2.5% and 17.7%, respectively. If an open approach was performed, length of stay increased by 61%. The R(2) value was 0.256. The model was validated in a 427 patient external cohort, which yielded an R(2) value of 0.214.

CONCLUSIONS

Age, preoperative hematocrit, preoperative albumin and approach have significant effects on length of stay for patients undergoing nephrectomy. Similar predictive models could prove useful in patient education as well as quality assessment.

A comparison of technique modifications in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of different technique modifications in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analyses.

DATA SOURCES

Searches of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Central from January 1st 1997 until April 1st 2014.

STUDY DESIGN

All cohort studies and randomized clinical trials comparing fully laparoscopic donor nephrectomy with modifications of the standard technique including hand-assisted, retroperitoneoscopic and single port techniques, were included.

DATA-EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS

The primary outcome measure was the number of complications. Secondary outcome measures included: conversion to open surgery, first warm ischemia time, estimated blood loss, graft function, operation time and length of hospital stay. Each technique modification was compared with standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Data was pooled with a random effects meta-analysis using odds ratios, weighted mean differences and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals. To assess heterogeneity, the I2 statistic was used. First, randomized clinical trials and cohort studies were analyzed separately, when data was comparable, pooled analysis were performed.

RESULTS

31 studies comparing laparoscopic donor nephrectomy with other technique modifications were identified, including 5 randomized clinical trials and 26 cohort studies. Since data of randomized clinical trials and cohort studies were comparable, these data were pooled. There were significantly less complications in the retroperitoneoscopic group as compared to transperitoneal group (OR 0.52, 95%CI 0.33-0.83, I2 = 0%). Hand-assisted techniques showed shorter first warm ischemia and operation times.

CONCLUSIONS

Hand-assistance reduces the operation and first warm ischemia times and may improve safety for surgeons with less experience in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. The retroperitoneoscopic approach was significantly associated with less complications. However, given the, in general, poor to intermediate quality and considerable heterogeneity in the included studies, further high-quality studies are required.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The review protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database before the start of the review process (CRD number 42013006565).

Laparoscopic radical and partial nephrectomy: The clinical efficacy and acceptance of the techniques

The laparoscopic approach has been established as the surgical procedure of choice for radical nephrectomy during the recent years. The advantages of the laparoscopic radical nephrectomy in comparison to the open approach are well-documented. The oncological results of the laparoscopic approach are similar to the open procedure while the post-operative morbidity is lower. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy seems to gain ground to its open counterpart, as the accumulation of experience in the technique grows. In this review, a PubMed search in the latest literature on radical and partial laparoscopic nephrectomy took place and the outcome of the search is presented. Several issues about the surgical techniques and clinical efficacy are discussed. In addition, the preliminary experience in laparoscopic nephrectomy of one of the authoring institutions is also presented.

Retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy with a gel-sealed hand-assist access device

Background

The hand-assisted technique enables the rapid extraction of the graft, shortening the warm ischemia time (WIT), and the retroperitoneoscopic approach is potentially associated with a less incidence of postoperative ileus in donor nephrectomy for living kidney transplantation. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy with a gel-sealed hand-assist access device (GelPort), which is a wound sealing device that permits the access of the hand to the surgical field, free trocar site choice within it, and rapid conversion to open surgery if necessary, while preserving the pneumoperitoneum/pneumoretroperitoneum.

Methods

Seventy-five consecutive donors receiving this procedure were retrospectively studied. A 2-cm skin incision was made at the midpoint between the tip of the 12th rib and superior border of the iliac bone in the midaxillary line, through which retroperitoneal space was made. Preperitoneal wound with a 6 – 7-cm pararectal incision in the upper abdominal region was connected to the retroperitoneal space. A GelPort was put inside the pararectal surgical wound. The principle was pure retroperitoneoscopic surgery; hand-assist was applied for retraction of the kidney in the renal vessel control and graft extraction.

Results

The mean operation time including waiting time for recipient preparation was 242.2±37.0 (range: 214.0–409.0) min, and the mean amount of blood loss was 164.3±146.6 (range: 10.0–1020.0) ml. The mean WIT was 2.8±1.0 (range: 1.0–6.0) min. The shortage of renal vessels or ureter was observed in none of the grafts. No donor experienced blood transfusion, open conversion, or injury of other organs. Blood loss was greater in patients with body mass index (BMI) of 25 kg/m² or higher than in those with BMI of <25 kg/m² (218.4±98.8 vs. 154.8±152.1 ml, P=0.031). No donor had postoperative ileus or reported wound pain leading to decreased activity of daily life or wound cosmetic problem.

Conclusions

Retroperitoneoscopic hand-assisted donor nephrectomy with the mentioned approach was suggested to be a feasible option without compromising safety, although further improvement in surgical techniques is warranted.

Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal disease, focusing on rectal cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic colorectal surgery may solve some of the problems inherent to conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS). We sought to evaluate the advantages of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) using the da Vinci Surgical System over CLS in patients with benign and malignant colorectal diseases.

METHODS

PubMed and Embase databases were searched for relevant studies published before July 2011. Studies clearly documenting a comparison of RALS with CLS for benign and malignant colorectal diseases were selected. Operative and postoperative measures, resection margins, complications, and related outcomes were evaluated. Weighted mean differences, relative risks, and hazard ratios were calculated using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included 16 studies comparing RALS and CLS in patients with colorectal diseases and 7 studies in rectal cancer. RALS was associated with lower estimated blood loss in colorectal diseases (P = 0.04) and rectal cancer (P < 0.001) and lower rates of intraoperative conversion in colorectal diseases (P = 0.03) and rectal cancer (P < 0.001) than CLS. In patients with colorectal diseases, however, operating time (P < 0.001) and total hospitalization cost (P = 0.06) were higher for RALS than for CLS.

CONCLUSIONS

RALS was associated with reduced estimated blood loss and a lower intraoperative conversion rate than CLS, with no differences in complication rates and surrogate markers of successful surgery. Robotic colorectal surgery is a promising tool, especially for patients with rectal cancer.