Cost Effectiveness of Open Versus Laparoscopic Living-Donor Nephrectomy

Robotic versus laparoscopic versus open nephrectomy for live kidney donors

BACKGROUND

Waiting lists for kidney transplantation continue to grow. Live kidney donation significantly reduces waiting times and improves long-term outcomes for recipients. Major disincentives to potential kidney donors are the pain and morbidity associated with surgery. This is an update of a review published in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of open donor nephrectomy (ODN), laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN), hand-assisted LDN (HALDN) and robotic donor nephrectomy (RDN) as appropriate surgical techniques for live kidney donors.

SEARCH METHODS

We contacted the Information Specialist and searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 31 March 2024 using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LDN with ODN, HALDN, or RDN were included.

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. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen studies randomising 1280 live kidney donors to ODN, LDN, HALDN, or RDN were included. All studies were assessed as having a low or unclear risk of bias for selection bias. Five studies had a high risk of bias for blinding. Seven studies randomised 815 live kidney donors to LDN or ODN. LDN was associated with reduced analgesia use (high certainty evidence) and shorter hospital stay, a longer procedure and longer warm ischaemia time (moderate certainty evidence). There were no overall differences in blood loss, perioperative complications, or need for operations (low or very low certainty evidence). Three studies randomised 270 live kidney donors to LDN or HALDN. There were no differences between HALDN and LDN for analgesia requirement, hospital stay (high certainty evidence), duration of procedure (moderate certainty evidence), blood loss, perioperative complications, or reoperations (low certainty evidence). The evidence for warm ischaemia time was very uncertain due to high heterogeneity. One study randomised 50 live kidney donors to retroperitoneal ODN or HALDN and reported less pain and analgesia requirements with ODN. It found decreased blood loss and duration of the procedure with HALDN. No differences were found in perioperative complications, reoperations, hospital stay, or primary warm ischaemia time. One study randomised 45 live kidney donors to LDN or RDN and reported a longer warm ischaemia time with RDN but no differences in analgesia requirement, duration of procedure, blood loss, perioperative complications, reoperations, or hospital stay. One study randomised 100 live kidney donors to two variations of LDN and reported no differences in hospital stay, duration of procedure, conversion rates, primary warm ischaemia times, or complications (not meta-analysed). The conversion rates to ODN were 6/587 (1.02%) in LDN, 1/160 (0.63%) in HALDN, and 0/15 in RDN. Graft outcomes were rarely or selectively reported across the studies. There were no differences between LDN and ODN for early graft loss, delayed graft function, acute rejection, ureteric complications, kidney function or one-year graft loss. In a meta-regression analysis between LDN and ODN, moderate certainty evidence on procedure duration changed significantly in favour of LDN over time (yearly reduction = 7.12 min, 95% CI 2.56 to 11.67; P = 0.0022). Differences in very low certainty evidence on perioperative complications also changed significantly in favour of LDN over time (yearly change in LnRR = 0.107, 95% CI 0.022 to 0.192; P = 0.014). Various different combinations of techniques were used in each study, resulting in heterogeneity among the results.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

LDN is associated with less pain compared to ODN and has comparable pain to HALDN and RDN. HALDN is comparable to LDN in all outcomes except warm ischaemia time, which may be associated with a reduction. One study reported kidneys obtained during RDN had greater warm ischaemia times. Complications and occurrences of perioperative events needing further intervention were equivalent between all methods.

Economic Consequences of Adult Living Kidney Donation: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

Current guidelines mandate organ donation to be financially neutral such that it neither rewards nor exploits donors. This systematic review was conducted to assess the magnitude and type of costs incurred by adult living kidney donors and to identify those at risk of financial hardship.

METHODS

We searched English-language journal articles and working papers assessing direct and indirect costs incurred by donors on PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, the National Institute for Health Research Economic Evaluation Database, Research Papers in Economics, and EconLit in 2005 and thereafter. Estimates of total costs, types of costs, and characteristics of donors who incurred the financial burden were extracted.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies were identified involving 6158 donors. Average donor-borne costs ranged from US$900 to US$19 900 (2019 values) over the period from predonation evaluation to the end of the first postoperative year. Less than half of donors sought financial assistance and 80% had financial loss. Out-of-pocket payments for travel and health services were the most reported items where lost income accounted for the largest proportion (23.2%-83.7%) of total costs. New indirect cost items were identified to be insurance difficulty, exercise impairment, and caregiver income loss. Donors from lower-income households and those who traveled long distances reported the greatest financial hardship.

CONCLUSIONS

Most kidney donors are undercompensated. Our findings highlight gaps in donor compensation for predonation evaluation, long-distance donations, and lifetime insurance protection. Additional studies outside of North America are needed to gain a global prospective on how to provide for financial neutrality for kidney donors.

Cost-effectiveness of four living-donor nephrectomy techniques from a hospital perspective

BACKGROUND

In Europe, transplantation centres use different nephrectomy techniques: open surgery, and standard, hand-assisted and robot-assisted laparoscopies. Few studies have analysed the disparity in costs and clinical outcomes between techniques. Since donors are healthy patients expecting minimum pain and fast recovery, this study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of four nephrectomy techniques focusing on early surgical outcomes, an essential in the donation act.

METHODS

A micro-costing approach was used to estimate the cost of implementation from a hospital perspective. Estimates took into account sterilization costs for multiple-use equipment, costs for purchasing single-use equipment, staff and analgesics. The study recruited donors in 20 centres in France. Quality of life by EuroQol-5D was assessed preoperatively, and 4 and 90 days post-operatively. Two effectiveness indicators were built: quality-of-life recovery and post-operative pain days averted (PPDA). The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02830568, on 10 June 2010.

RESULTS

A total of 264 donors were included; they underwent open surgery (n = 65), and standard (n = 65), hand-assisted (n = 65) and robot-assisted laparoscopies (n = 69). Use of the nephrectomy techniques differed greatly in cost of implementation and immediate post-operative outcomes but not in clinical outcomes at 90 days. At 4 days, hand-assisted laparoscopy provided the lowest cost per quality-of-life recovery unit of effectiveness (%) and PPDA (days) (€2056/40.1%/2.3 days, respectively). Robot-assisted laparoscopy was associated with the best post-operative outcomes but with the highest cost (€3430/59.1%/2.6 days).

CONCLUSION

Hand-assisted, standard and robot-assisted laparoscopies are cost-effective techniques compared with open surgery. Hand-assisted surgery is the most cost-effective procedure. Robot-assisted surgery requires more healthcare resource use but enables the best clinical outcome.

Living-donor nephrectomy at Singapore General Hospital: Evolution of surgical techniques over the last two decades

Background:

Laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy is the current epitome of living kidney donation surgery. We review our experience in living-donor nephrectomies over the last 19 years, transitioning from open surgery to hand-assisted laparoscopy to full laparoscopic techniques.

Methods:

We retrospectively identified all living-donor nephrectomies performed at our institution from 1976 to 2018. The donors were categorised according to surgical techniques: open (ODN), hand-assisted laparoscopy (HALDN) and full laparoscopy (LDN). We reviewed changes in donor demographics over the years. Surgical outcomes between groups were compared from 2000 to 2018. We also compared the outcomes of LDN between different time periods to evaluate our learning curve.

Results:

A total of 214 living-donor nephrectomies were performed between 2000 and 2018. The majority were left sided (93%) and had single renal artery anatomy (90%). There were 22 ODN, 20 HALDN and 163 LDN cases. The mean operating time was 84±43, 151±32 and 179±37 minutes for ODN, HALDN and LDN, respectively ( p<0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in mean warm ischaemia times ( p=0.921) and length of hospital stay ( p=0.114) between groups. The overall 30-day surgical morbidity rate was 9.3%, with a major complications rate of 0.9%. The mean warm ischaemia time for LDN was significantly different ( p<0.001) between time periods: 281±260, 184±94 and 140±42 seconds for the periods between 2005–2009, 2010–2014 and 2015–2018, respectively.

Conclusion:

This study confirms the safety of living-donor nephrectomies performed at our institution, a centre with a modest volume of kidney transplants.

Comparison of Surgical Techniques in Living Donor Nephrectomy: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis

Background

The aim of this study was to compare and evaluate surgical techniques used for living donor nephrectomy (LDN).

Material/Methods

We performed a meta-analysis to compare 4 surgical techniques: open LDN (OLDN), laparoscopic LDN (LLDN), hand-assisted LLDN (HALLDN), and robot-assisted LLDN (RLDN).

Results

No significant differences were found among these surgical techniques in terms of BMI, donor postoperative complications, 1-year graft survival, and DGF. Compared to the OLDN, the other 3 surgical techniques preferred to harvest the left kidney. When the right kidney was chosen as a donor, OLDN was the first-choice surgical technique. EBL was significantly lower in the HALLDN, LLDN, and RLDN groups when compared to the OLDN group. However, operative time and WIT were significantly shorter in the OLDN group. The RLDN group had an increased rate of donor intraoperative complications and a significantly lower VAS on day 1. The OLDN group required more morphine intake than the LLDN group. The length of hospital stay was significantly longer and AR was significantly higher in the OLDN group than in the LLDN and HALLDN groups.

Conclusions

There are no significant differences in donor postoperative complications, recipient DGF, and graft survival among the 4 surgical techniques. OLDN reduces WIT and operation time, but increases EBL and AR. RLDN and LLDN reduce the length of hospital stay, morphine intake, and VAS, and thus accelerate recovery. However, RLDN is associated with increased intraoperative complications.

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.

Novel surgical techniques, regenerative medicine, tissue engineering and innovative immunosuppression in kidney transplantation

On the 60th anniversary of the first successfully performed renal transplantation, we summarize the historical, current and potential future status of kidney transplantation. We discuss three different aspects with a potential significant influence on kidney transplantation progress: the development of surgical techniques, the influence of regenerative medicine and tissue engineering, and changes in immunosuppression. We evaluate the standard open surgical procedures with modern techniques and compare them to less invasive videoscopic as well as robotic techniques. The role of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine as a potential method for future kidney regeneration or replacement and the interesting search for novel solutions in the field of immunosuppression will be discussed. After 60 years since the first successfully performed kidney transplantation, we can conclude that the greatest achievements are associated with the development of surgical techniques and with planned systemic immunosuppression.

Cost Effectiveness of Sucroferric Oxyhydroxide Compared with Sevelamer Carbonate in the Treatment of Hyperphosphataemia in Patients Receiving Dialysis, from the Perspective of the National Health Service in Scotland

BACKGROUND

Hyperphosphataemia is common and harmful in patients receiving dialysis. Treatment options include noncalcium-based phosphate binders such as sevelamer carbonate (SC) and sucroferric oxyhydroxide (PA21).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine the health economic impact of PA21-based strategies compared with SC-based strategies, from the perspective of the Scottish National Health Service (NHS).

METHODS

A Markov model was constructed based on data from a randomised clinical trial comparing PA21 and SC. Model input parameters were derived from published literature, national statistics and unpublished sources. Costs (price year 2012) and effects were discounted at 3.5 %. Analysis with a lifelong time horizon yielded the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as cost or savings per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained or forgone. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to explore uncertainties around assumptions and model input parameters.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, phosphorus reductions for PA21 and SC were 1.93 and 1.95 mg/dL. Average undiscounted survival was estimated to be 7.61 years per patient in both strategies. PA21 patients accrued less QALYs (2.826) than SC patients (2.835), partially due to differential occurrence of side effects. Total costs were ₤ 13,119 and ₤ 14,728 for PA21 and SC, respectively (difference per patient of ₤ 1609). By using PA21 versus SC, one would save ₤ 174,999 (or ₤ 123,463 when including dialysis and transplantation costs) for one QALY forgone. A scenario modelling the nonsignificant reduction in mortality (relative risk 0.714) observed in the trial yielded an ICER for PA21 of ₤ 22,621 per QALY gained. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis of the base-case, PA21 was dominant in 11 %, and at least cost-effective in 53 %, of iterations, using a threshold of ₤ 20,000 per QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of PA21 versus SC in hyperphosphataemic patients being intolerant of calcium-based phosphate binders may be cost saving and yields only very limited disadvantages in terms of quality-adjusted survival. PA21 appears to be cost-effective from the perspective of the Scottish NHS.

Prospective cost analysis of laparoscopic vs. open pyeloplasty in children: Single centre contemporary evaluation comparing two procedures over a 1-year period

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopy in pediatric urological surgery continues to gradually gain acceptance. Since economic implications are of increasing importance in our cost-containment environment, few studies have compared the expense associated with open to laparoscopic approaches. We present a prospective comparative cost-analysis between the laparoscopic (LP) and open pediatric pyeloplasty (OP).

METHODS

Over a period of a year (2007-2008), 54 consecutives pyeloplasties were performed. The "traditional" OP was performed in 33 patients and the remaining 21 children underwent LP. Costs were prospectively collected for each group and divided based on amounts incurred by all different departments involved: nursing, laboratory, diagnostic imaging, pharmacy and operative room.

RESULTS

Overall, the average cost for a LP was CDN$6240 compared to CDN$5079 for an OP with a median hospital stay of 2 days (range OP: 1-18, LP: 1-7). The main difference was found in operative room expenses (OP: $2508 vs. LP: $3925). The higher cost could not be solely explained by the use of disposable items, which only subtracts $335 per procedure (23.6% of the cost difference between OP and LP). Length of time spent in the operating room was 1.2 hours longer for the LP and appears to be the main factor explaining the cost difference.

CONCLUSION

Our findings show that at our institution, pediatric LP is more expensive than OP. This cost difference is mainly due to operating room time. For cost-containment purposes, efforts aimed at increasing efficiency in the operating room may help equalize both approaches.

Comorbidity burden and perioperative complications for living kidney donors in the United States

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Since 1998, 35% of kidney transplants in the United States have been derived from living donors. Research suggests minimal long-term health consequences after donation, but comprehensive studies are limited. The primary objective was to evaluate trends in comorbidity burden and complications among living donors.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

The National Inpatient Sample (NIS) was used to identify donors from 1998 to 2010 (n=69,117). Comorbid conditions, complications, and length of stay during hospitalization were evaluated. Outcomes among cohorts undergoing appendectomies, cholecystectomies and nephrectomy for nonmetastatic carcinoma were compared, and sample characteristics were validated with the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR). Survey regression models were used to identify risk factors for outcomes.

RESULTS

The NIS captured 89% (69,117 of 77,702) of living donors in the United States. Donor characteristics were relatively concordant with those noted in SRTR (mean age, 40.1 versus 40.3 years [P=0.18]; female donors, 59.0% versus 59.1% [P=0.13]; white donors, 68.4% versus 69.8% [P<0.001] for NIS versus SRTR). Incidence of perioperative complications was 7.9% and decreased from 1998 to 2010 (from 10.1% to 7.6%). Men (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.20 to 1.56) and donors with hypertension (AOR, 3.35; 95% CI, 2.24 to 5.01) were more likely to have perioperative complications. Median length of stay declined over time (from 3.7 days to 2.5 days), with longer length of stay associated with obesity, depression, hypertension, and pulmonary disorders. Presence of depression (AOR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.12), hypothyroidism (AOR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.11), hypertension (AOR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.27 to 1.49), and obesity (AOR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.11) increased over time. Complication rates and length of stay were similar for patients undergoing appendectomies and cholecystectomies but were less than those with nephrectomies for carcinoma.

CONCLUSIONS

The NIS is a representative sample of living donors. Complications and length of stay after donation have declined over time, while presence of documented comorbid conditions has increased. Patients undergoing appendectomy and cholecystectomy have similar outcomes during hospitalization. Monitoring the health of living donors remains critically important.

Cost aspects of radical nephrectomy for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma in Korea: open, laparoscopic, robot-assisted laparoscopic, and video-assisted minilaparotomy surgeries

Purpose

This study aimed to comparatively evaluate the cost-effectiveness of four different types of radical nephrectomy (RN) techniques: open, laparoscopic, robot-assisted laparoscopic, and video-assisted minilaparotomy surgery (VAMS).

Materials and Methods

Among patients who were diagnosed with renal cell carcinoma and underwent RN, 20 patients were selected who received open, laparoscopic, robot-assisted laparoscopic, or VAMS RN between January 2008 and December 2010. Their medical fees were divided into four categories: procedure and operation, anesthesia, laboratory test, and medical supply fees. The medical costs of the patients were also divided into insured and uninsured costs.

Results

The total direct cost of VAMS, open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted laparoscopic RN were 2,023,791±240,757, 2,024,246±674,859 (p=0.998), 3,603,557±870,333 (p<0.01), and 8,021,902±330,157 (p<0.01) Korean Won (KRW, the currency of South Koea), respectively. The total insured cost of VAMS, open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted laparoscopic RN was 1,904,627±231,957, 1,798,127±645,602 (p=0.634), 3,039,769±711,792 (p<0.01), and 899,668±323,508 (p<0.01) KRW, respectively. The total uninsured cost of VAMS, open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted laparoscopic RN was 119,163±24,581, 226,119±215,009, 563,788±487,798 (p<0.01), and 7,122,234±56,117 (p<0.01) KRW, respectively. Medical supply fees accounted for the largest portion of the costs and amounted to 33.43% of the VAMS cost.

Conclusions

VAMS RN is as cost-effective as open surgery. Furthermore, it is comparatively more cost-effective than laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic RN.

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.

Acute Appendicitis following Laparoscopic Live Donor Nephrectomy

Acute abdominal pain following laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (LLDN) might be a diagnostic dilemma, and prompt diagnosis and management is of paramount importance. Herein, we describe a case of acute appendicitis in a 62-year-old kidney donor who presented with acute abdominal pain 16 days following LLDN with features inconsistent with a diagnosis of acute appendicitis. An ultrasound scan suggested strangulated Spigelian hernia unrelated to the operative wound. Exploration of the wound and mini-laparotomy showed no evidence of wound dehiscence or a hernia, but revealed an inflamed appendix wrapped up with omentum. Appendectomy led to complete recovery of the patient. It is imperative to maintain a high index of suspicion for acute appendicitis in this situation to avoid septic complications that might adversely affect the residual renal function and cause negative impact on kidney donation. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first reported case of acute appendicitis following LLDN.