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

Evolution of Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy Techniques and Outcomes: A Single-Center Experience with More than 1000 Cases

Background

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) has evolved and has been established as a surgical standard of care for kidney transplantation.

Material/Methods

This study retrospectively reviews 1132 patients who underwent 4 different laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomies: hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy (HALDN), pure laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (PLDN), laparoendoscopic single-site plus 1-port donor nephrectomy (LESSOP-DN), and mini laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (MLDN).

Results

The mean estimated blood loss (EBL) for the HALDN group was meaningfully higher than those of LESSOP-DN and MLDN (57.5±52.2 mL versus 21.0±30.0 mL versus 18.2±28.7 mL) (P<0.001). The EBL for PLDN (53.3±35.3 mL) was also significantly higher than those of LESSOP-DN and MLDN (P<0.001). Length of stay (LOS) for HALDN was longer than that for LESSOP-DN (4.2±1.2 day versus 4.0±1.4 days, P=0.002). There was 1 intraoperative open conversion in the HALDN group and 2 HALDN surgeries that required postoperative exploratory laparotomy. LESSOP-DN had 3 (0.8%) postoperative incisional hernias. For recipients, the results revealed no significant differences between all 4 groups in terms of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and the 1-year graft failure rate.

Conclusions

The LESSOP-DN group was associated with a shorter incision length than those of HALDN and PLDN and shorter LOS than that of HALDN. Recipient results showed no meaningful difference regarding laparoscopic donor nephrectomy technique.

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.

Laparoendoscopic Single-site Plus 1-port Donor Nephrectomy: Division of Roles to Shorten Warm Ischemic Time

BACKGROUND

In this study we present our new surgical procedure, laparoendoscopic single-site surgery plus 1 for donor nephrectomy (LESS+1-DN), which shortens warm ischemic time (WIT) and improves surgical outcomes.

METHODS

From January 2013 to February 2017, 15 patients who underwent LESS-DN and 41 patients who underwent LESS+1-DN at our institution were evaluated retrospectively. Patients were divided into 3 groups: group A, 15 cases of LESS-DN; group B, the first 15 patients who underwent LESS+1-DN; and group C, 26 patients who underwent subsequent LESS+1-DN. To reduce WIT, we clearly defined the roles of the surgeon and first assistant in the 26 subsequent LESS+1-DN cases. The surgeon dissected the renal pedicle and harvested the kidney graft using a recovery bag and the first assistant held the recovery bag.

RESULTS

The mean operative time in group C (213.7 minutes) was significantly shorter than that in groups A (253.3 minutes) and B (253.8 minutes). The WIT in group C (195.2 seconds) was significantly shorter than that in groups A (389.8 seconds) and B (313.2 seconds). Open conversion was required in 1 case in group A. None of the donors required conversion to open surgery and no perioperative complications occurred in groups B and C. Linear regression analysis of the LESS+1-DN operative times and consecutive case numbers demonstrated a shallow learning curve (R² = 0.392, P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Our new procedure that divides the roles of the operator and the first assistant contributed significantly to a shortening of WIT. Dividing roles can facilitate a safer laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.

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).