The Transition From Laparoscopic to Retroperitoneoscopic Live Donor Nephrectomy: A Matched Pair Pilot Study

Surgical Approaches and Outcomes in Living Donor Nephrectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

CONTEXT

The use of living kidney donors is increasing and there are several surgical approaches for donor nephrectomy but it remains unknown which procedure is optimal for the patient and the graft.

OBJECTIVE

To review different surgical techniques for living donor nephrectomy and compare complication rates, warm ischemia time, and delayed graft function.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic review of prospective studies involving surgical complications following living donor nephrectomy was conducted in the MEDLINE/PubMed and EMBASE databases according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P). Baseline data, perioperative and postoperative parameters, and postoperative complications are reported. Overall complication rates between surgical techniques were compared via analysis of variance with post hoc analysis. We included 35 studies involving 6398 patients and representing six different surgical procedures for living donor nephrectomy.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy had a significantly higher overall complication rate compared to open, laparoscopic, retroperitoneoscopic, and laparoendoscopic single-site techniques (p < 0.005). The complication rates were low and no mortality was observed. The main limitation was varying reporting of complications, with only one-third of the studies using the Clavien-Dindo classification.

CONCLUSIONS

No specific surgical approach seems superior in terms of complications, which were generally low. Different factors such as warm ischemia time, blood loss, and surgeon expertise define which surgical approach should be chosen.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We looked at the different surgical methods for removing the kidney from a living kidney donor. Overall, the different surgical techniques were similar in terms of complications and no donors died in the studies we reviewed. The choice of procedure depends on multiple factors such as the expertise of the surgeon and the surgical center.

Retroperitoneoscopic nephrectomy: current status

The classic retroperitoneal open surgical access to the kidney has been duplicated while performing laparoscopy but is less common than transperitoneal laparoscopy. We reviewed minimally invasive retroperitoneoscopic nephrectomy as a part of the international consultation on urological diseases and European Association of Urology international consultation on minimally invasive surgery in urology. A Pubmed/Medline search was performed to identify studies assessing the feasibility, safety and efficacy of laparoscopic and robotic retroperitoneoscopic nephrectomy. The articles were reviewed to assess outcomes after simple, radical and donor nephrectomy and comparative trials between retroperitoneoscopic versus the open and transperitoneal route were evaluated. Retroperitoneoscopic nephrectomy is feasible for most cases of benign non-functioning kidneys. Retroperitoneoscopic radical nephrectomy is also feasible for most tumours and may be better suited for posteriorly located tumours. Both retroperitoneoscopic and transperitoneal nephrectomy have similar outcomes but the operative time may be shorter for the former. The data are insufficient for robotic retroperitoneoscopic nephrectomy probably because of limited space and lack of benefit of a robot in ablative surgeries.

Level of evidence: 3a

Retroperitoneoscopic Standard or Hand-Assisted Versus Laparoscopic Standard or Hand-Assisted Donor Nephrectomy: A Systematic Review and the First Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

At the present four minimally invasive procedures namely retroperitoneoscopic (RPDN), laparoscopic (LPDN), hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic (HARDN) and hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN) are used to perform donor nephrectomies. The current evidence based on retrospective studies and on pairwise only meta-analyses is inconclusive. Up to authors' best knowledge there is no so far network meta-analysis to compare all the above-mentioned procedures. Therefore, a network meta-analysis was conducted to compare the feasibility, safety and reproducibility of the four donor nephrectomies procedures.

METHODS

Google Scholar, EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane library were used for a systematic literature search. Both updated pairwise and network meta-analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Compared to LPDN there was evidence of significantly more right kidneys retrieved with RPDN; nonsignificant differences demonstrated both with HALDN and HARDN compared to LPDN. There was evidence that the operative time was significantly shorter by 77 min in RPDN compared to LPDN; on the other hand, HARDN and HALDN did not demonstrate significant differences when compared to LPDN.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study demonstrates that each approach can be applied safely in adequately selected patients. Moreover, retroperitoneoscopic is reliable, safe and easily reproducible alternative of LPDN for both left and right kidneys.

A novel difficulty grading system for laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy

Background

Several difficulty grading systems have been developed as a useful tool for selecting patients and training surgeons in laparoscopic procedures. However, there is little information on predicting the difficulty of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN). The aim of this study was to develop a grading system to predict the difficulty of LDN.

Methods

Data of 1741 living donors, who underwent pure or hand-assisted LDN between 1994 and 2018 were analyzed. Multivariable analyses were performed to identify factors associated with prolonged operative time, defined as a difficulty index with 0 to 8. The difficulty of LDN was classified into three levels based on the difficulty index.

Results

Multivariable analyses identified that male (odds ratio [OR] 1.69, 95% CI 1.37–2.09, P < 0.001), BMI > 28 (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.08–1.72, P = 0.009), pure LDN (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.53–2.60, P < 0.001), multiple renal arteries (OR 2.38, 95% CI 1.83–3.10, P < 0.001) and multiple renal veins (OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.52–3.16, P < 0.001) were independent risk factors influencing prolonged operative time. The difficulty index based on these factors was calculated and categorized into three levels: low (0–2), intermediate (3–5), and high (6–8) difficulty. Operative time was significantly longer in the high difficulty group (225 min) than in the low (169 min, P < 0.001) and intermediate difficulty group (194 min, P < 0.001). The conversion rate was higher in the high difficulty group (4.4%) than in the low (2.1%, P = 0.04) and the intermediate difficulty group (3.0%, P = 0.27). No significant difference in major complications was found between the groups.

Conclusion

We developed a novel grading system with simple preoperative donor factors to predict the difficulty of LDN. This grading system may help surgeons in patient selection to advance their experiences and/or teach fellows from simple to difficult LDN.

Transition from laparoscopic to retroperitoneoscopic approach for live donor nephrectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy has become the standard of care due to multiple benefits. Currently, there are various techniques employed with two different approaches: transperitoneal (TLDN) or retroperitoneoscopic (RLDN) approach. There is a lack of data to determine which technique is superior, although the RLDN offers an anatomical advantage by avoidance of manipulation of the intraperitoneal organs. The aims of this study were to explore the merits of RLDN to TLDN and assess the learning curve of transition from TLDN to RLDN.

METHODS

From January 2010 to February 2017, 106 live donor nephrectomies were performed: 56 by TLDN and 50 by RLDN. Data on patient demographics, perioperative parameters, analgesic consumption, pain scores, and kidney graft function were collected and analysed. Data were compared with a Student's t test or Mann-Whitney test. A CUSUM analysis was performed to investigate the learning curve.

RESULTS

All live donor nephrectomies were successful with no conversion to open surgery. There was no blood transfusion, readmission, or mortality. No postoperative complications were graded over Clavien II. Kidney function was comparable in both groups. The follow-up period ranged from 3 to 78 months.

CONCLUSION

Retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy is a safe approach with comparable results to TLDN. RLDN has an anatomical advantage as it avoids manipulating the intraperitoneal organs and retains a virgin abdomen and hence translates to a lower perioperative complication risk.

Prediction, prevention, and management of delayed graft function: where are we now?

Delayed graft function (DGF) remains a major barrier to improved outcomes after kidney transplantation. High-risk transplant recipients can be identified, but no definitive prediction model exists. Novel biomarkers to predict DGF in the first hours post-transplant, such as neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL), are under investigation. Donor management to minimize the profound physiological consequences of brain death is highly complex. A hormonal resuscitation package to manage the catecholamine "storm" that follows brain death is recommended. Donor pretreatment with dopamine prior to procurement lowers the rate of DGF. Hypothermic machine perfusion may offer a significant reduction in the rate of DGF vs simple cold storage, but costs need to be evaluated. Surgically, reducing warm ischemia time may be advantageous. Research into recipient preconditioning options has so far not generated clinically helpful interventions. Diagnostic criteria for DGF vary, but requirement for dialysis and/or persistent high serum creatinine is likely to remain key to diagnosis until current work on early biomarkers has progressed further. Management centers on close monitoring of graft (non)function and physiological parameters. With so many unanswered questions, substantial reductions in the toll of DGF in the near future seem unlikely but concentrated research on many levels offers long-term promise.

Utility of inguinal incision in retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy

BACKGROUND

Retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy has been performed in many countries. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the inguinal incision as a route for hand-assisted manipulation and allograft retrieval.

METHODS

From April 2011 to June 2012, a prospective clinical study of 21 cases of retroperitoneal live donor nephrectomy was performed at our hospital. All donors were grouped in a test group (n = 11, inguinal incision) or a control group (n = 10, lumbar incision). The operative time, warm ischaemia time, blood loss, hospital stay, cosmetic satisfaction, incision complications, and recipient's serum creatinines were compared between groups.

RESULTS

All 21 cases of retroperitoneal live donor nephrectomy were accomplished successfully without serious complications. There was no difference in blood loss and operative time between groups. The mean warm ischaemic time and hospital stay was shorter (P < 0.01), and satisfaction with cosmesis was greater (P < 0.05) in the test group. The abdominal asymmetry (4/10) and wound dehiscence occurred only in the control group. The recipient's serum creatinine was lower in the test group at 1 day (P < 0.01) and 3 days (P < 0.05) after transplantation.

CONCLUSION

The inguinal incision offers an ideal route for hand-assisted manipulation and allograft retrieval during retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy, and has a potential to be generally applied in the future.

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.

Prospective Swiss cohort study of living-kidney donors: study protocol

Background Offering living kidney donation raised the concern that donors are exposed to unknown risks. All Swiss transplant centres therefore decided to start a prospective cohort study of living kidney donors in Switzerland. This paper describes the rationale for and implementation of this cohort study. Methods/design All kidney donors in Switzerland are registered and examined before donation and biennially after donation starting in the first year after nephrectomy. Before each follow-up visit, the study centre sends a package to the kidney donor containing the health questionnaire, blood and urine tubes and a prepaid envelope for sending the samples to the central laboratory. The donor makes an appointment with their family physician, who examines the donor and reports findings such as pain and other complaints, blood pressure, creatinine, albumin, all major health events and the state of mental and social well-being to the study centre. The family doctor draws the blood sample and mails it with the urine sample in the prepaid envelope. All data are centrally managed. All abnormal findings in the follow-up of individual donors are regularly discussed with the principal investigator, and necessary clinical changes made and recorded in the database. The health insurance of the recipient covers all costs of the donor follow-up. The main outcomes are the occurrence of albuminuria, hypertension and renal insufficiency. The secondary outcomes are major somatic and social events such as death, cardiovascular disease, stroke and depression. Discussion This prospective cohort offers unique opportunities to assess the risks of living kidney donation and will allow us to examine the risks associated with the methods used for nephrectomy in Switzerland (various forms of open surgery and laparoscopic nephrectomy). The prospective collection of all clinically relevant data and the regular monitoring of donors will allow timely interventions at early stages before serious kidney and general health problems occur.