Live donor nephrectomy: a review of evidence for surgical techniques

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.

Outcomes and Cost Comparison of 3 Different Laparoscopic Approach for Living Donor Nephrectomy: A Retrospective, Single-Center, Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Analysis of 551 Cases

BACKGROUND

At our institution, we switched from hand-assisted retroperitoneal laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HRN) to hand-assisted transperitoneal laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HTN); we later switched to standard retroperitoneal laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (SRN). This study was performed to evaluate outcomes and hospital costs among the 3 techniques.

METHODS

This retrospective, observational, single-center, inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis study compared the outcomes among 551 cases of living donor kidney transplantation between 2014 and 2022.

RESULTS

After the inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis, there were 114 cases in the HRN group, 204 cases in the HTN group, and 213 cases in the SRN group. Donor complication rates were lowest in the SRN group but did not differ between the HRN and HTN groups (1.1 vs 4.4 and 5.9%, P = .021). Donors in the SRN group had the lowest serum C-reactive protein concentrations on postoperative day 1 (4.3 vs 10.5 and 7.8 mg/dL, P < .001) and the shortest postoperative stay (4.3 vs 7.4 and 8.4 days, P < .001). Donors in the SRN group had the lowest total cost among the 3 groups (8868 vs 9709 and 10,592 USD, P < .0001). Donors in the SRN group also had the lowest costs in terms of "basic medical fees," "medication and injection fees," "Intraoperative drug and material costs," and "testing fees." Furthermore, the presence of complications was significantly correlated with higher total hospital costs (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

SRN appeared to have the least invasive and complication, and a potential cost savings compared with the HRN and HTN.

Trends in kidney transplantation and living donor nephrectomy in Germany: a total population analysis from 2006 to 2021

PURPOSE

To analyze recent trends of surgical access routes, length of hospital stay (LOS), and mortality in kidney transplantation (KT) and living donor nephrectomy (LDN) in Germany.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We studied the nationwide German hospital billing database and the German hospital quality reports from 2006 to 2021.

RESULTS

There were a total of 35.898 KTs. In total, 9044 (25%) were living donor transplantations, while 26.854 (75%) were transplantations after donation after brain death (DBD). The share of open LDN decreased from 82% in 2006 to 22% in 2020 (- 4%/year; p < 0.001). The share of laparoscopic LDN increased from 18% in 2006 to 70% in 2020 (+ 3%/year; p < 0.001). The share of robotic LDN increased from 0% in 2006 to 8% in 2020 (+ 0.6%/year; p < 0.001). Robotic-assisted KT increased from 5 cases in 2016 to 13 procedures in 2019 (p = 0.2). LOS was shorter after living donor KT, i.e., 18 ± 12.1 days versus 21 ± 19.6 days for DBD renal transplantation (p < 0.001). Moreover, LOS differed for open versus laparoscopic versus robotic LDN (9 ± 3.1 vs. 8 ± 2.9 vs. 6 ± 2.6; p = 0.031). The overall in-hospital mortality was 0.16% (n = 5) after LDN, 0.47% (n = 42) after living donor KT and 1.8% (n = 475) after DBD KT.

CONCLUSIONS

There is an increasing trend toward minimal-invasive LDN in recent years. Overall, in-hospital mortality was low after KT. However, 5 deceased healthy donors after LKD caution that the risks of this procedure should also be taken very seriously.

External Oblique Intercostal Block for Living Kidney Donor Open Nephrectomy: A Case Series

The external oblique intercostal (EOI) block is a novel regional technique that provides analgesia for upper abdominal incisions. We performed single-injection and continuous EOI blocks in living kidney donors who underwent open nephrectomy. In this case series, we report our experience with pain management using this technique in five patients at our centre. EOI block resulted in good pain relief in our patients. The median (IQR) numerical rating scale score was 3 (1-6) at rest immediately after the end of the surgery, predominantly visceral. We want to highlight the benefits regarding pain management of the association of EOI block with conventional therapy.

Current practice of live donor nephrectomy in Turkey

BACKGROUND

Over the last few years, the deceased donor organ donation rate was declined or remained stable, whereas the live donor organ donation rate has increased to compensate for the demand. Minimally invasive techniques for live donor nephrectomy (LDN) have also improved the live donor kidney donation rates. This increase has led to an interest in the surgical procedures used for LDN.

AIM

To evaluate the LDN techniques performed in Turkey, the structure of surgical teams, and the training received. Additionally, the number of kidney transplantations at different centers, the surgeon experience level, differences in surgical approach during donor surgeries, and outcomes were assessed.

METHODS

A questionnaire was sent to the Turkish Ministry of Health-accredited transplant centers. It inquired of the number of LDN surgeries, surgical techniques, complications, optimization protocols, the experience of surgeons, and the training. Descriptive statistics were outlined as follows: Discrete numeric variables were expressed as medians (minimum-maximum), while categorical variables were shown as numbers and percentages. As a result of the goodness-of-fit tests, if the significance of the differences between the groups in discrete numerical variables for which the parametric test statistical assumptions were not met, data were analyzed with the Mann Whitney U test and the χ² test.

RESULTS

The questionnaire was sent to 72 transplant centers, all of which replied. Five centers that reported not performing LDN procedures were excluded. Responses from the remaining 67 centers were analyzed. In 2019, the median number of kidney transplants performed was 45, and the median number of kidney transplants from living donors was 28 (1-238). Eleven (16.5%) centers performed 5-10, while 34 (50.7%) centers performed more than 100 live donor kidney transplants in 2019. While 19 (28.4%) centers performed the LDN procedures using the open technique, 48 (71.6%) centers implemented minimally invasive techniques. Among the centers preferring minimally invasive techniques for LDN, eight (16.6%) used more than one surgical technique. The most and the least common surgical techniques were transperitoneal laparoscopic (43 centers, 89.6%) and single port laparoscopic LDN (1 center, 2.1%) techniques, respectively. A positive association was found between the performance of minimally invasive techniques and the case volume of a transplant center, both in the total number and live donor kidney transplants (15 vs 55, P = 0.001 and 9 vs 42, P ≤ 0001 respectively). The most frequently reported complication was postoperative atelectasis (n = 33, 49.2%). There was no difference between the techniques concerning complications except for the chyle leak.

CONCLUSION

Turkish transplant centers performed LDN surgeries successfully through various techniques. Centers implementing minimally invasive techniques had a relatively higher number of live donor kidney transplants in 2019.

Solo-surgeon pure laparoscopic donor nephrectomy using passive camera holder: IDEAL stage 2a study

BACKGROUND

Solo-surgery can be defined as a practice of a surgeon operating alone using a camera holder, without other surgical members except for a scrub nurse. This study was designed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of solo-surgeon pure laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.

METHODS

The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea. The brief study protocol was registered on the Clinical Research Information Service site of the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Candidates fulfilling all inclusion and exclusion criteria were enrolled in the clinical trial and underwent solo-surgeon pure laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. The feasibility was assessed by the proportion of subjects who could undergo solo-surgeon pure laparoscopic donor nephrectomy without difficulty. The perioperative complications were identified to assess the safety of solo-surgeon pure laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.

RESULTS

Of the 47 potential candidates from November 2018 to August 2019, 40 were enrolled in the clinical trial and seven excluded due to declining participation. The feasibility of solo-surgeon pure laparoscopic donor nephrectomy was 100%, without an occasion of any difficulty requiring conversion to the human assisted pure laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Fourteen intraoperative complications occurred in 10 patients. The most common intraoperative complication was spleen injury. Two of three cases classified as the Satava classification grade II were due to the incomplete stapling of endoscopic stapler. Seventy-eight postoperative complications occurred in 34 patients. The most common postoperative complication was nausea/vomiting and followed by aspartate aminotransferase/alanine aminotransferase elevation. Most postoperative complication was independent of the solo-surgery itself.

CONCLUSIONS

Solo-surgeon pure laparoscopic donor nephrectomy using passive camera holder is technically feasible. In terms of safety, it is necessary to adjust the scope of surgery performed alone. Trial Registration CRIS, KCT0003458. Registered 30/01/2019, Retrospectively registered, https://cris.nih.go.kr/cris/search/detailSearch.do/15868 .

Robotic versus hand-assisted laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy: comparison of two minimally invasive techniques in kidney transplantation

Robot-assisted donor nephrectomy (RDN) is increasingly used due to its advantages such as its precision and reduced learning curve when compared to laparoscopic techniques. Concerns remain among surgeons regarding possible longer warm ischemia time. This study aimed to compare patients undergoing robotic living donor nephrectomy to the more frequently used hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy (HLDN) technique, focusing on warm ischemia time, total operative time, learning curve, hospital length of stay, donor renal function and post-operative complications. Retrospective study comparing RDN to HLDN in a collaborative transplant network. 176 patients were included, 72 in RDN and 104 in HLDN. Left-sided nephrectomy was favored in RDN (82% vs 52%, p < 0.01). Operative time was longer in RDN (287 vs 160 min; p < 0.01), while warm ischemia time was similar (221 vs 213 secs, p = 0.446). The hospital stay was shorter in RDN (3.9 vs 5.7 days, p < 0.01).Concerning renal function, a slightpersistent increase of 7% of the creatinine ratio was observed in the RDN compared to the HLDN group (1.56 vs 1.44 at 1-month checkup, p < 0.01). The results show that RDN appears safe and efficient in comparison to the gold-standard HLDN technique. Warm ischemia time was similar for both techniques, whereas RDN operative time was longer. Patients undergoing RDN had a shorter hospital stay, this being possibly mitigated by differences in center release criteria. Donor renal function needs to be assessed on a longer-term basis for both techniques.

[Robot-assisted Living Donor Nephrectomy - Technical Aspects and Initial Evidence]

Minimally invasive donor nephrectomy has become the standard procedure in most transplant centres over the past two decades and has contributed to a reduction in postoperative morbidity for the donor. Robot-assisted technology is an alternative to conventional (hand-assisted) laparoscopic technology and will find increasing use in the future. In this review article, we address technical aspects of robotic-assisted donor nephrectomy, in accordance with our own experience and will provide an overview of the currently available literature. Robot-assisted living kidney donation is a safe procedure with a very low postoperative complication rate. The procedure offers advantages over the open surgical technique with respect to the reduction in the postoperative need for analgesia and the duration of hospital stay, with longer operating times and warm ischemia times, but without a measurable effect on transplant function. The postoperative outcome parameters are comparable to those of the laparoscopic technique, indicating a further acceleration of postoperative convalescence. The advantages of robot-assisted technology, due to the better exposure options, are most relevant in patients with a high BMI and multiple renal arteries, as well as in right-sided nephrectomies in which a longer transplant artery can be obtained. Robot-assisted living kidney donation will play a major role in the future of transplant surgery and is a serious alternative to conventional laparoscopic technology.

The Evolution of Living Donor Nephrectomy Program at A Hellenic Transplant Center. Laparoscopic vs. Open Donor Nephrectomy: Single-Center Experience

Since its introduction in 1995, laparoscopic nephrectomy has emerged as the preferred surgical approach for living donor nephrectomy. Given the ubiquity of the surgical procedure and the need for favorable outcomes, as it is an elective operation on otherwise healthy individuals, it is imperative to ensure appropriate preoperative risk stratification and anticipate intraoperative challenges. The aim of the present study was to compare peri-and postoperative outcomes of living kidney donors (LD), who had undergone laparoscopic nephrectomy (LDN), with a control group of those who had undergone open nephrectomy (ODN). Health-related quality of life (QoL) was also assessed using the validated SF-36 questionnaire. Data from 252 LD from a single transplant center from March 2015 to December 2020 were analyzed retrospectively. In total, 117 donors in the LDN and 135 in the ODN groups were assessed. Demographics, type of transplantation, BMI, duration of surgery, length of hospital stay, peri- and postoperative complications, renal function at discharge and QoL were recorded and compared between the two groups using Stata 13.0 software. There was no difference in baseline characteristics, nor in the prevalence of peri-and postoperative complications, with a total complication rate of 16% (mostly minor, Clavien–Dindo grade II) in both groups, while a different pattern of surgical complications was noticed between them. Duration of surgery was significantly longer in the ODN group (median 240 min vs. 160 min in LDN, p < 0.01), warm ischemia time was longer in the LDN group (median 6 min vs.2 min in ODN, p < 0.01) and length of hospital stay shorter in the LDN group (median 3 days vs. 7 days in ODN). Conversion rate from laparoscopic to open surgery was 2.5%. There was a drop in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at discharge of 36 mL/min in the LDN and 32 mL/min in the ODN groups, respectively (p = 0.03). No death, readmission or reoperation were recorded. There was a significant difference in favor of LDN group for each one of the eight items of the questionnaire (SF1–SF8). As for the two summary scores, while the total physical component summary (PCS) score was comparable between the two groups (57.87 in the LDN group and 57.07 in the ODN group), the mental component summary (MCS) score was significantly higher (62.14 vs. 45.22, p < 0.001) in the LDN group. This study provides evidence that minimally invasive surgery can be performed safely, with very good short-term outcomes, providing several benefits for the living kidney donor, thereby contributing to expanding the living donor pool, which is essential, especially in countries with deceased-donor organ shortage.

Pure laparoscopic donor nephrectomy without routine drainage does not increase postoperative morbidity

Purpose

We aimed to define the feasibility of the omission of routine insertion of a drain after pure laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (PLDN). We compared the outcomes between those with and without routine drain insertion.

Materials and Methods

From July 2014 to October 2018, 178 PLDN were consecutively performed by a single surgeon. Since October 2016, we stopped routine insertion of a drain after PLDN. Thus, the former 80 drained routinely were defined as the Drainage group and the latter 98 were defined as the Non-drainage group. One patient drained non-routinely in the Non-drainage group was excluded from the final analysis. Operative and convalescence parameters and intra- and postoperative complications were compared between the groups. Intra- and postoperative complications within 90 days of surgery were graded using the Satava and Clavien–Dindo classifications, respectively.

Results

Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups, except for concomitant surgery, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, and preoperative glomerular filtration rate. All operative and convalescence parameters were similar between the groups, except for postoperative glomerular filtration rate. The rates of overall intra- (22.5% versus 28.9%, p=0.337) and postoperative (62.5% versus 59.8%, p=0.713) complications were similar between the groups. The rates of potentially drain-related postoperative complications were also similar between the groups (36.3% versus 33.0%, p=0.650). Two patients per group suffered from major drain-related complications (2.5% versus 2.1%).

Conclusions

PLDN without routine drainage can be performed safely without an increase in postoperative morbidity.

Outcomes of Renal Stone Surgery Performed Either as Predonation or Ex Vivo Bench Procedure in Renal Grafts from Living Donors: A Systematic Review

AIMS

We aimed to summarize available evidence about intraoperative and postoperative donors' and recipients' outcomes following stone surgery in renal grafts from living donors performed either before donation or as ex vivo bench surgery at the time of living-donor nephrectomy.

METHODS

A systematic review of PubMed, ISI Web of Knowledge, and Scopus databases was performed in September 2020. We included full papers that met the following criteria: original research, English language, human studies, and describing the results of stone surgery in renal grafts from living donors performed either before transplantation or as ex vivo bench surgery.

RESULTS

We identified 11 studies involving 106 patients aged between 22 and 72 years. Predonation and bench stone surgery was performed in 9 (8.5%) and 96 (90.6%) patients, respectively. Predonation stone surgery involved extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, retrograde intrarenal surgery, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy in 8, 1, and 1 patient, respectively. The overall success rate of predonation stone surgery was 78%, and the complication rate was 0%. Bench stone surgery involved ureteroscopy, pyelolithotomy, or a combination of both in 79 (82.3%), 10 (10.4%), and 7 (7.3%) cases, respectively, with an overall success rate of 95.8% and an overall complication rate of 9.37%.

CONCLUSIONS

Predonation and bench stone surgery in grafts from living donors represents efficacious and safe procedures. Further studies on wider series with a longer follow-up are required.

Iliac Fossa Muscle Splitting Incision in Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy: A comparison With the Suprapubic Approach

OBJECTIVE

To compare the outcomes of a transverse suprapubic incision with peritoneal access through the midline (SPM) and an iliac fossa muscle splitting (IFMS) incision for kidney retrieval during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This observational retrospective comparative cohort study was performed using data from a prospectively maintained database to compare the outcomes of 2 different incisions (SPM n = 35 and IFMS n = 35) used for kidney retrieval during LDN. All incisions were infiltrated with local anesthesia at the time of closure. The primary outcome measure was postoperative analgesic requirements. Secondary outcome measures included donor complication rates and recipient outcomes. Selection bias was minimized by the study of 2 consecutive series of donors.

RESULTS

Overall, 28 of the 70 (40%) of the total cohort were male. There was no difference between age (IFMS 49 ± 12 vs SPM 49 ± 11 years, P = .317), body mass index (IFMS 26.5 ± 3.9 vs SPM 25.9 ± 3.3 kg/m², P = .493), and total postoperative opioid analgesic requirements (IFMS 213 ± 168 vs SPM 211 ± 168 mg, P = .807) between the 2 groups. The volume of local anesthetic infiltrated during wound closure was higher in the IFMS 0.470 ± 0.160 vs SPM 0.370 ± 0.234 mL/kg (P = .030) and associated with a reduction in postoperative opioid requirements (r = -0.511, P = .002). There were no major donor or recipient postoperative complications in either group and no difference in renal allograft function at 3-, 6-, 9-, or 12 months post-transplant.

CONCLUSION

An iliac fossa muscle splitting incision is a straightforward and safe approach, providing a reasonable alternative to the more traditional and widely used suprapubic incision for kidney retrieval during LDN.

Safety and Efficacy of Right Retroperitoneal Laparoscopic Live Donor Nephrectomy: A Retrospective Single-Center Study

Background

The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of right retroperitoneal laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (LDN) in 81 cases of living-related renal transplant.

Material/Methods

We retrospectively reviewed all living-related donors who underwent right retroperitoneoscopic living donor nephrectomy between June 2010 and December 2017 at the First Hospital of Jilin University and their corresponding recipients. Demographic and clinical data were collected from the hospital’s electronic clinical data system. Data on preoperative renal retention parameters, operative time, and donor kidney warm ischemia time, the trimmed length of the renal artery and vein of donor kidney, and the time to extubation were recorded. Complications in both donors and recipients were recorded.

Results

We included 81 donors who underwent successful right-sided retroperitoneoscopic LDN, with 31 males and 50 females and a mean age of 47.1 years (range 21–63 years). There was no intraoperative conversion to open donor nephrectomy. The mean operative time was 120.68±29.8 min. The mean warm ischemic time was 49.26±3.86 s. The estimate blood loss was 54.32 mL (range 50–400 mL). The median length of hospital stay was 7 days (range 4–13 days). There was neither intraoperative complication such as hemorrhage or lymph fistula nor kidney graft injury. There was no graft renal vein thrombosis and ureteral stricture or other complications. No graft rejection occurred.

Conclusions

Right retroperitoneal laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy is safe and effective for renal transplant in living-related renal transplant by laparoscopic excision and extraction of the right kidney with vena cava flap.

Zoning inside the renal fascia: The anatomical relationship between the urinary system and perirenal fat

Objectives

To examine the anatomical relationship between the urinary system and perirenal fat, and to clarify the zoning inside the renal fascia.

Methods

Using computed tomography images from 50 men, we examined perinephric veins to reveal vessel communication in perirenal fat. Nine cadavers were dissected to investigate connective tissue continuity and vessel communication inside the renal fascia. Eight retroperitoneal specimens were macroscopically observed: four from the anterior and four from the posterior aspects. One specimen was used to obtain retroperitoneal transverse sections to study macroscopic anatomy and histology.

Results

Perinephric veins were classified into four types (superior, middle, inferior and lateral) using computed tomography. Most of the inferior perinephric veins were connected to the ipsilateral gonadal vein. In the cadaveric study, the superior and middle perinephric veins communicated with veins deriving from the ipsilateral adrenal gland. A fibrous connective tissue gap between perirenal fat and renal hilar fat was observed in posterior aspect dissection. From the gap, we could dissect the urinary system from perirenal fat en bloc along with a thin fibrous connective tissue layer. Communicating vessels between perirenal fat and the urinary system were rare.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that perirenal fat belongs to the connective tissue of the gonad and the adrenal gland. The urinary system is separate from perirenal fat, and is located on the dorsal side inside the renal fascia. This concept of zoning inside the renal fascia is valuable particularly in retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy.

The Evolution of Kidney Transplantation Surgery Into the Robotic Era and Its Prospects for Obese Recipients

Robotic-assisted kidney transplantation (RAKT) represents the most recent innovation in the evolution of kidney transplantation surgery. Vascular techniques enabling kidney transplantation have existed since the early 20th century and contributed to the first successful open kidney transplant procedure in 1954. Technical advances have since facilitated minimally invasive laparoscopic and robotic techniques in live-donor surgery, and subsequently for the recipient procedure. This review follows the development of surgical techniques for kidney transplantation, with a special focus on the advent of robotic-assisted transplantation because of its potential to facilitate transplantation of those deemed previously too obese to transplant by standard means. The different techniques, indications, advantages, disadvantages, and future directions of this approach will be explored in detail. Robot-assisted kidney transplantation may become the preferred means of transplanting morbidly obese recipients, although its availability to such recipients remains extremely limited and strategies targeting weight loss pretransplantation should never be abandoned in favor of a "RAKT-first" approach.

Living donor nephrectomy

OBJECTIVE

The Guidelines Project, an initiative of the Brazilian Medical Association, aims to combine information from the medical field in order to standardize producers to assist the reasoning and decision-making of doctors.

CONCLUSIONS

The information provided through this project must be assessed and criticized by the physician responsible for the conduct that will be adopted, depending on the conditions and the clinical status of each patient.

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 and laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: A comparison of surgical outcomes from two centres

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to compare the different surgical approaches of two centers on outcomes of live donor laparoscopic nephrectomy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The first 98 patients of each centre who underwent laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) or hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN) were included in the study. The following data were used for analyses: donor age, weight, height, body mass index (BMI), transfusion requirement, operative time, ischemia time and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

Median age, BMI, operation time and estimated blood loss (EBL) was 47.29 years, 27.91 kg/m², 110.73 minutes, and 78.95 mL, respectively. Operation time was significantly shorter in the HALDN group (t=-3.554, p<0.01). EBL was not significantly different between the two groups. The difference in hospitalization time and warm ischemia times (WIT) was not significant between the two surgical technique groups (t=-1.554, t=1.258; p>0.05). No statistically significant difference was detected in the intraoperative and postoperative complication rates between two groups (p>0.05). The postoperative complication rate was 7.14% (n=7) and 6.12% (n=6) in the LDN and HALDN groups, respectively. There were two patients with conversion to open surgery in the HALDN group because of lumbar vein injury.

CONCLUSION

The operative and postoperative outcomes for the two techniques were found to be similar. The HALDN technique preserves the benefits of minimally invasive surgery. In experienced urologic laparoscopy centres both techniques promise similar success rates.

Mini-incision versus hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in living-donor kidney transplantation: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Increasing use of Living Donor Kidney Transplantation (LDKT) would decrease the discrepancy between patients awaiting transplantation and organ availability. Minimally invasive surgical approaches attempt to improve outcomes and foster living donation. This report compares outcomes of open minimal incision nephrectomy (Mini N) and a hand assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy (HALN).

METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained clinical database of LDKT using HALN or Mini N at a single institution between July 2007 and December 2015. Donor and recipient demographics, relevant pre-, intra- and post-operative factors, outcomes such as patient and graft survival rates, and complications were evaluated.

RESULTS

Four hundred and fifty-four adult LDKT (243 Mini N, 211 HALN) were performed during the study period. Recipient and donor demographics were comparable except for higher BMI (p = 0.027) in HALN donors. One-, 3- and 5-year patient and graft survival rates were comparable. Six HALN donors experienced infectious wound complications or superficial skin dehiscence; none did in the Mini N group (p = 0.009). Eight HALN donors and one Mini N donor required an incisional hernia repair (p = 0.014). Recipients had similar warm ischemia times (33 v. 35 min, p = 0.491), but recipient surgeons of HALN nephrectomies subjectively noted higher anastomotic difficulty (10.4% v. 4.5%, p = 0.0183). Other parameters were similar between groups.

CONCLUSION

Both Mini N and HALN provide similar long term recipient and donor outcomes. Offering techniques such as Mini N and HALN for living donor kidney procurement facilitates the opportunity to provide living donors safer and better tolerated nephrectomy procedures.

Robot-Assisted Transplant Surgery - Vision or Reality? A Comprehensive Review

Minimally invasive surgery is standard procedure for many operations. Further refinements include the introduction of robotic surgery which is still an emerging field especially in laparoscopic surgery. Since the successful introduction of the da Vinci Robotic Surgical System, the robotic approach in organ transplantation has become of great interest in both the live donor organ retrieval and the recipient operation. Robotic surgery for kidney, liver, and pancreas transplantation is feasible. Over 700 donor nephrectomies and 100 kidney transplantations have been performed already, and robotic surgery is standard in a small number of pioneer centers; however, larger series and most importantly randomized controlled trials for the highest evidence are needed. Longer warm ischemia time and higher costs limit these procedures at the moment.

Pregabalin reduces opioid consumption and hyperalgesia but not pain intensity after laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

BACKGROUND

Gabapentinoids are increasingly used to reduce acute postoperative pain, opioid consumption and opioid-related adverse effects. We explored the opioid-sparing, analgesic and anti-hyperalgesic effect of perioperative administered pregabalin in laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy.

METHODS

In this randomized controlled trial, 80 patients were recruited and randomized to receive pregabalin 150 mg twice daily or placebo on the day of surgery and the first postoperative day as part of a multimodal analgesic regimen. Primary outcome was opioid consumption 0-48 h after surgery. Secondary outcomes were pain intensity at rest and with movement 0-48 h after surgery using the 0-10 Numeric Rating Scale and incisional hyperalgesia measured 24 h post-surgery and at hospital discharge. Further secondary outcomes were adverse effects. Persistent post-surgical pain was registered 6 weeks, 6 and 12 months after surgery.

RESULTS

Pregabalin significantly reduced opioid consumption compared with placebo 0-48 h after surgery (median mg [25th, 75th percentile]); 29.0 (22.0-45.5) vs. 41.8 (25.8-63.6) (P = 0.04). Pain intensity 0-48 h after surgery calculated as area under the pain (NRS) vs. time curve was not statistically different between groups at rest (P = 0.12) or with movement (P = 0.21). Pregabalin decreased incisional hyperalgesia 24 h after surgery (median cm [25th, 75th percentile] 8.5 (1.0-18.5) vs. 15.5 (9.5-24.0) (P = 0.02). Nausea (P ≤ 0.01), use of antiemetics (P ≤ 0.01) and pain-related sleep interference (P = 0.02) were reduced with pregabalin.

CONCLUSIONS

Perioperative pregabalin added to a multimodal analgesic regimen was opioid-sparing, but made no difference to pain intensity score 0-48 h after surgery. Pregabalin may reduce incisional hyperalgesia on the first day after surgery.

Robotic-Assisted Live Donor Ileal Segmentectomy for Intestinal Transplantation

Background

Every effort should be made to optimize surgical techniques and to minimize potential morbidity rates associated with live donor operations. Advances in a minimally invasive approach by robotic surgery to donor nephrectomy have raised the possibility of applying this technique to live donor bowel resections for intestinal transplantation.

Methods

We report the first 5 consecutive cases of a robotic-assisted live donor ileal segmentectomy. We describe the technical aspects of the procedure, discuss the rationale for considering this option, and evaluate potential advantages of this approach.

Results

We found that this new approach is associated with less postoperative discomfort, a shorter hospital length of stay, and a faster recovery of bowel function compared to our previous open surgery.

Conclusions

Our initial experience suggests that robotic surgery is a safe and feasible procedure for live donor ileal resection for intestinal transplantation and is a useful alternative to conventional open surgery.

External validation of a proposed prognostic model for the prediction of 1-year postoperative eGFR after living donor nephrectomy

PURPOSE

The goal of this study was to externally validate the recently proposed prognostic model for the prediction of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) < 60 ml/min/1.73 m² 1 year after living donor nephrectomy.

METHODS

130 living kidney donors (median age at donation 52.3 years, range 24.7-75.6 years) were investigated before and after donation between March 2000 and April 2016. Preoperative eGFR values varied between 61.7 and 148.4 ml/min (mean: 89, median: 88). Observed eGFR 1 year after transplantation (±45 days) ranged between 36.3 and 97.1 ml/min (mean: 55, median: 53). 70.8% of donors displayed eGFR values < 60 ml/min 1 year after donation. Predicted eGFR 1 year after donation was determined using the prognostic model proposed by Benoit et al. (Int Urol Nephrol 49(5):793-801. doi: 10.1007/s11255-017-1559-1 , 2017): postoperative eGFR ml/min/1.73 m² = 31.71 + (0.521 × eGFR in ml/min prior to donation -0.314 × Age in years at donation). Pearson correlation and receiver operating characteristics curve (ROC-curve) were used to assess external validity of the proposed prognostic model to predict postoperative eGFR in ml/min and eGFR < 60 ml/min.

RESULTS

The correlation between predicted and observed eGFR 1 year after donation was significant (p < 0.001; R ² = 0.594). The area under the ROC-curve (AUROC) demonstrated a high sensitivity and specificity for predicted eGFR values < 60 ml/min (AUROC = 0.866).

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed prognostic model for the prediction of postoperative eGFR was successfully validated in our cohort. We therefore consider the model as generally applicable.

Minimally Invasive, Laparoscopic, and Robotic-assisted Techniques Versus Open Techniques for Kidney Transplant Recipients: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Literature on conventional and minimally invasive operative techniques has not been systematically reviewed for kidney transplant recipients.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically evaluate, summarize, and review evidence supporting operating technique and postoperative outcome for kidney transplant recipients.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic review was conducted in PubMed-Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library between 1966 up to September 1, 2016, according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis guidelines. Articles were included and scored by two independent reviewers using Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE), Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS), and Oxford guidelines for level of evidence. Main outcomes were graft survival, surgical site infection, incisional hernia, and cosmetic result. In total, 18 out of 1954 identified publications were included in this analysis.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Included reports described conventional open, minimally invasive open, laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted techniques. General level of evidence of included studies was low (GRADE: 1-3; NOS: 0-4; and Oxford level of evidence: 4-2). No differences in graft or patient survival were found. For open techniques, Gibson incision showed better results than the hockey-stick incision for incisional hernia (4% vs 16%), abdominal wall relaxation (8% vs 24%), and cosmesis. Minimally invasive operative recipient techniques showed lowest surgical site infection (range 0-8%) and incisional hernia rates (range 0-6%) with improved cosmetic result and postoperative recovery. Disadvantages included prolonged cold ischemia time, warm ischemia time, and total operation time.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the level of evidence was generally low, minimally invasive techniques showed promising results with regard to complications and recovery, and could be considered for use. For open surgery, the smallest possible Gibson incision appeared to yield favorable results.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In this paper, the available evidence for minimally invasive operation techniques for kidney transplantation was reviewed. The quality of the reviewed research was generally low but suggested possible advantages for minimally invasive, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted techniques.

Innovative Applications of Robotic Surgery: Renal Allograft and Autologous Transplantation

Robotic surgery has enabled surgeons to offer more patients a minimally invasive surgical option in the management of their complex diseases. While renal transplantation is associated with significant improvements in quantity and quality of life for most end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients, it is also not devoid of its surgical risks and potential morbidities. Robotic-assisted kidney transplantation is a recently described, innovative application of the robotic surgery platform, and early experiences suggest that it is associated with comparable graft function and lower rates of complications.

Urinary tract obstruction, though less common than ESRD, can be a serious threat to renal function. Severe ureteric stricture disease can represent a clinically complex problem requiring major reconstructive surgery. Completely intra-corporeal robotic renal auto-transplantation is another innovative application of the robotic surgery platform and represents a significant advancement in urologic surgery. Initial reports of this procedure demonstrate safety, feasibility, and excellent renal function outcomes.

Transition From Hand-Assisted to Pure Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy

Background and Objectives:

We compared perioperative donor outcomes and early graft function of hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN) and pure laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (PLDN) performed by a single surgeon, to define the feasibility of technical transition from HALDN to PLDN.

Methods:

From October 1, 2012, through June 30, 2014, 60 donor nephrectomies were performed by a single surgeon who lacked experience with laparoscopic renal surgery: the first 30 by HALDN and the last 30 by PLDN. Operative and convalescence parameters were compared, as were intra- and postoperative complications within 90 days according to the Satava and Clavien-Dindo classifications, respectively. Binary logistic regression analysis was used to estimate the association of baseline characteristics with complications.

Results:

Baseline characteristics were similar in the 2 groups, except for American Society of Anesthesiologists score II (10.0% vs 43.3%; P = .007). All procedures were completed as planned. All operative and convalescence parameters of donors and graft outcomes were similar in the 2 groups, as were overall rates of intraoperative (43.3% vs 36.7%, P = .598) and postoperative (86.7% vs 70.0%; P = .209) complications. No factor was significantly predictive of intraoperative complications, whereas sex (female vs male, odds ratio, 0.183; P = .029) and learning curve (odds ratio, 0.602; P = .036) were significant determinants of postoperative complication.

Conclusion:

The technical transition from HALDN to PLDN does not involve a steep learning curve for surgeons less experienced with laparoscopic renal surgery and maintains similar perioperative donor and graft outcomes.

[Robotical laparoscopic nephrectomy for living donors]

Robotic surgery has been developed since the 2000s. Urology is the discipline that received the widest of the evolution of robotic surgery especially due to prostatectomy. Meanwhile kidney failure develops and kidney transplantation is unfortunately hampered by the number of cadaveric grafts available. Kidney living donation takes its rise, not including the development of minimally invasive surgery in which robotics has its place. We describe the environment of this development as well as the technique and the contribution of the operating nurse in the removal of kidney with the robotic approach in living donors.

Intra-corporeal robotic renal auto-transplantation

Renal auto-transplantation (RATx) is a suitable option for managing patients with long upper ureteric or pan-ureteric strictures. The current gold standard approach to RATx is a laparoscopic nephrectomy followed by open auto-transplantation. The advent of robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery has allowed us to apply minimally-invasive techniques to ever-more complex surgical procedures. We present the case of a 38-year-old patient referred to our institution for management of a failed laparoscopic pyeloplasty resulting in a long upper ureteric stricture with complete ureteric obstruction. After complete evaluation, RATx was determined as a suitable management option. Completely intracorporeal right RATx was performed robotically with intraperitoneal cold perfusion. Total operative time was 6.5 hours, with total ischemia time of only 79 minutes (4 minutes warm ischemia, 48 minutes cold ischemia, 27 minutes re-warming time), comparable to the gold standard approach for RATx. To our knowledge, this is the first reported case of a completely intracorporeal robotic RATx in Canada.

Successful introduction of laparoendoscopic single-site donor nephrectomy after experience with laparoscopic single-site plus-one trocar donor nephrectomy

PURPOSE

To assess the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of the laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) donor nephrectomy (LESSDN) procedure after experience with the LESS-plus-one-trocar donor nephrectomy (LEPODN) procedure.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From 2009 to 2014, 126 left laparoscopic donor nephrectomies (LDNs) were performed, including 59 Standard (Std)-LDN, 30 LEPODN, and 37 LESSDN. In the LEPODN procedure, a 5-mm trocar was added as a right-hand working trocar to the LESSDN procedure. A GelPOINT(®) platform was applied on a pararectal single incision in both LEPODN and LESSDN procedures. After performing the LEPODN procedure several times, each surgeon performed the LESSDN procedure.

RESULTS

Std-LDN, LEPODN, and LESSDN procedures were performed by 10, 10, and 7 surgeons, respectively. The mean operative time, estimated blood loss, warm ischemia time, time to ambulation, and length of postoperative hospital stay were the shortest for the LESSDN procedure (P<0.012, P=0.007, P<0.001, P=0.027, and P=0.001, respectively). No significant difference in the complication rate, delayed graft function rate, and mean 7-day post-transplant serum creatinine levels was observed among the three procedures. Individual results of the operative time and estimated blood loss for the LESSDN procedure were not significantly inferior to those of Std-LDN and LEPODN procedures for each surgeon.

CONCLUSIONS

The LESSDN procedure can be introduced safely and effectively without compromising the operative time, complication rate, and graft function after experience with the LEPODN procedure among multiple surgeons. The LEPODN procedure may be an effective bridge from standard multiport LDN to LESSDN.

Risk factors for perioperative complications in hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

Living donor kidney transplant is the preferred treatment for end-stage renal disease; however, the shortage of kidney donors remains a big problem. One of the major reasons for the shortage of living donors is the risk of potentially serious surgical complications of a procedure in which the donor has no personal medical benefit. Therefore it is important to understand the risk factors for perioperative complications associated with donor nephrectomy. Hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is the preferred approach for kidney procurement in many medical centers. This review gives an overview of the risk factors in donor nephrectomy and more specifically in hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.

Comparison of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery using tissue fusion devices and open resection for treatment of rectosigmoid carcinoma

Modern tissue fusion devices used in hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS), a method of combining endoscopic surgery with tactile sensation, can minimize surgical trauma and hospitalization times beyond both conventional laparoscopy and open surgery. The outcomes of HALS using tissue fusion devices and conventional open surgery for curative resection of rectosigmoid carcinoma were compared. A total of 78 (45 males, 33 females; mean age, 57.2±11.7 y) rectosigmoid carcinoma patients underwent HALS surgery (HALS group) and 78 age-matched, sex-matched, and tumor status-matched rectosigmoid carcinoma patients (control group) underwent open resection between June 2008 and June 2010. In the HALS and control groups, abdominal incision length, intraoperative blood loss, procedure time, postoperative abdominal drainage, time to first flatus (bowel function return), length of hospital stay, morbidity, mortality, and pathology were assessed. Procedure times were similar in both groups (142.37±42.09 vs. 137.56±36.24 min). However, length of abdominal incision (5.14±0.47 vs. 13.17±2.41 cm), intraoperative blood loss (125.96±75.58 vs. 142.56±65.37 mL), need for postoperative analgesia, bowel function return (68.01±22.64 vs. 79.77±19.94 h), and postoperative hospital stay (6.47±1.73 vs. 7.73±1.71 d) were all significantly improved in the HALS group. At a median follow-up of 26 months, no significant differences in anastomotic recurrence were observed between groups (1 case/each group). Thus, the HALS approach for curative resection of rectosigmoid carcinoma was found to be similarly safe and effective compared with open resection. Furthermore, HALS may improve postoperative recovery and reduce hospitalization times.

Shifting paradigms in eligibility criteria for live kidney donation: a systematic review

As the organ shortage increases, inherently the demand for donor kidneys continues to rise. Thus, live kidney donation is essential for increasing the donor pool. In order to create successful expansion, extended criteria live kidney donors should be considered. This review combines current guidelines with all available literature in this field, trying to seek and establish the optimal extended criteria. Comprehensive searches were carried out in major databases until November 2013 to search for articles regarding older age, overweight and obesity, hypertension, vascular anomalies/multiplicity, nulliparous women, and minors as donors. Of the 2079 articles found, 152 fell within the scope of the review. Five major guidelines were included and reviewed. Based on the literature search, live kidney donation in older donors (up to 70 years of age) seems to be safe as outcome is comparable to younger donors. Obese donors have comparable outcome to lean donors, in short- and mid-term follow-up. Since little literature is available proving the safety of donation of hypertensive donors, caution is advised. Vascular multiplicity poses no direct danger to the donor and women of childbearing age can be safely included as donors. Although outcome after donation in minors is shown to be comparable to adult donors, they should only be considered if no other options exist. We conclude that the analyzed factors above should not be considered as absolute contraindications for donation.

Approach via a small retroperitoneal anterior subcostal incision in the supine position for gasless laparoendoscopic single-port radical nephrectomy: initial experience of 42 patients

BACKGROUND

Gasless laparoendoscopic single-port surgery (GasLESS) for radical nephrectomy (GasLESSRN) in the flank position is a minimally invasive treatment option for patients with T1-3 renal cell carcinoma (RCC). However, RCC patients considered suitable for supine positioning rather than flank positioning for radical nephrectomy are occasionally encountered. This study evaluated the safety and feasibility of approach via a small retroperitoneal anterior subcostal incision (RASI) in the supine position for GasLESSRN (RASI-GasLESSRN) on the basis of our initial experience.

METHODS

RASI-GasLESSRN was performed on 42 patients with RCC or suspected RCC from 2011-2013. The RASI, which was 6 cm long in principle, was made parallel to the tip of the rib from the lateral border of rectus abdominis muscle toward the flank in the supine position. The specimen was extracted via the RASI using a retrieval device. All procedures were performed retroperitoneally under flexible endoscopy with reusable instruments and without carbon dioxide insufflation or insertion of hands into the operative field.

RESULTS

RASI-GasLESSRN was successfully performed in all patients without complications. The mean incision length was 6.3 cm, mean operative time was 198 minutes, and mean blood loss was 284 mL. All 42 patients were classified as Clavien grade I. The mean times to oral feeding and walking were 1.1 and 2 days, respectively. The mean number of postoperative days required for patients to be dischargeable was 3.7 days.

CONCLUSIONS

The approach via a small RASI in the supine position for GasLESSRN is a safe and feasible technique. RASI-GasLESSRN in the supine position is an alternative minimally invasive treatment option, especially for RCC patients considered suitable for supine positioning.

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.

Systemic heparinisation in laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy

Introduction. Systemic heparinisation is advocated during laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (LDN) as a preventative measure against renal vascular thrombosis during the warm ischaemic interval. This study compares the outcome with and without the administration of systemic heparinisation. Methods. A retrospective analysis was performed on 186 consecutive LDN patients between April 2008 and November 2012. Systemic heparin (2000-3000 IU) was administered intravenously to donors (hep n = 109). From January 2010, heparin was not used systemically in this group of LDN (no hep n = 77). Outcome measures included donor and recipient complications, initial graft function, and 12 month graft survival. Results. The demographics of both heparinised and non-heparinised donors were similar. The warm ischaemic time (WIT) was comparable in both groups (WIT; hep 5 ± 3 versus no hep 5 ± 3 minutes; P = 1.000). There was no difference in complication rates, no episodes of graft thrombosis, and no incidences of primary nonfunction in either group. Delayed graft function occurred in 4/109 and 1/77 (3.6% versus 1.2%; P = 0.405) and there was no significant difference in graft survival (P = 0.650). Conclusion. Omitting systemic heparinisation during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is a feasible and safe approach that does not compromise donor or recipient outcome.

Impact of right-sided nephrectomy on long-term outcomes in retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy at single center

Objective. To assess the long-term graft survival of right-sided retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy (RPLDN), we compared the outcomes of right- and left-sided RPLDN. Methods. Five hundred and thirty-three patients underwent live donor renal transplantation with allografts procured by RPLDN from July 2001 to August 2010 at our institute. Of these, 24 (4.5%) cases were selected for right-sided RPLDN (R-RPLDN) according to our criteria for donor kidney selection. Study variables included peri- and postoperative clinical data. Results. No significant differences were found in the recipients' postoperative graft function and incidence of slow graft function. Despite significant increased warm ischemic time (WIT: mean 5.9 min versus 4.7 min, P < 0.001) in R-RPLDN compared to that in L-RPLDN, there was no significant difference between the two groups regarding long-term patient and graft survival. The complication rate in R-RPLDN was not significantly different compared to that in L-RPLDN (17% versus 6.5%, P = 0.132). No renal vein thrombosis was experienced in either groups. Conclusions. Although our study was retrospective and there was only a small number of R-RPLDN patients, R-RPLDN could be an option for laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy because of similar results, with the sole exception of WIT, in L-RPLDN, and its excellent long-term graft outcomes.

[Surgical aspects of living donor nephrectomy]

CONTEXT

Living donor renal transplant surgery has evolved from the classical nephrectomy by lumbotomy to less invasive surgery, the laparoscopic and robotic nephrectomy currently being the most important. It is important to know the available evidence on whether nephrectomy in patients with multiple arteries, right kidney and in obese patients can be performed safely when there is a correct indication.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a review of the different surgical techniques in living donor nephrectomy, adapted to the current surgical evidence and other aspects related to the indication.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic review was made in PubMed (1997-2011). This included previous reviews randomized controlled clinical studies, cohort studies, and meta-analyses of this surgical aspects of living donor nephrectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Currently, there is sufficient evidence to consider living donor laparoscopic nephrectomy as the technique of choice, although the role of hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic technique is still not totally clear. Open surgery techniques using mini-incision are an acceptable alternative for the sites that have not yet implemented laparoscopic surgery. Right kidney nephrectomy, of those cases that present multiple pedicles and in obese donors, is justified in selected cases.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the relation between body mass index and short-term donor outcome of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

In this era of organ donor shortage, live kidney donation has been proven to increase the donor pool; however, it is extremely important to make careful decisions in the selection of possible live donors. A body mass index (BMI) above 35 is generally considered as a relative contraindication for donation. To determine whether this is justified, a systematic review and meta-analysis were carried out to compare perioperative outcome of live donor nephrectomy between donors with high and low BMI. A comprehensive literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library). All aspects of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement were followed. Of 14 studies reviewed, eight perioperative donor outcome measures were meta-analyzed, and, of these, five were not different between BMI categories. Three found significant differences in favor of low BMI (29.9 and less) donors with significant mean differences in operation duration (16.9 min (confidence interval (CI) 9.1-24.8)), mean difference in rise in serum creatinine (0.05 mg/dl (CI 0.01-0.09)), and risk ratio for conversion (1.69 (CI 1.12-2.56)). Thus, a high body mass index (BMI) alone is no contraindication for live kidney donation regarding short-term outcome.

A prospective study on living related kidney donors' quality of life in the first year: choosing appropriate reference data

Prospective studies on living kidney donors' quality of life (QoL) are still rare. Most existing studies compare healthy donors with the general population, including subjects with diseases. This is the first prospective study comparing living donors' QoL with reference data of both the general population and healthy individuals. We investigated QoL, anxiety, and depression in living kidney donors (n = 79) before donation and at two post-operative data points (three months and one yr). Subsequently, data from the donors were compared with the reference data. Our results show an impaired physical QoL three months post-donation. One yr after surgery, physical QoL had returned to the pre-operative level. Neither mental QoL nor anxiety or depression showed major changes across time. Pre-operative QoL was comparable to that of healthy individuals and higher than that in the general population. Donors' perception of the recipient's health showed moderate correlations with donors' mental outcome three months after donation. In conclusion, the impact on physical QoL seems to persist for at least three months after kidney donation. It could be demonstrated that in the context of living donation, healthy individuals provide more adequate reference data. Future research needs to determine the length and the nature of the post-operative QoL impairment and further explore possible influencing factors.

Mini-incision right hepatic lobectomy with or without laparoscopic assistance for living donor hepatectomy

Minimally invasive procedures are considered to be safe and effective approaches to the management of surgical liver disease. However, this indication remains controversial for living donor hepatectomy. Between 2000 and 2011, living donor right hepatectomy (LDRH) was performed 58 times. Standard right hepatectomy was performed in 30 patients via a subcostal incision with a midline extension. Minimally invasive procedures began to be used for LDRH in 2008. A hybrid technique (hand-assisted laparoscopic liver mobilization and minilaparotomy for parenchymal dissection) was developed and used in 19 patients. In 2010, an upper midline incision (10 cm) without laparoscopic assistance for LDRH was innovated, and this technique was used in 9 patients. The perioperative factors were compared, and the indications for minimally invasive LDRH were investigated. The operative blood loss was significantly less for the patients undergoing a minimally invasive procedure versus the patients undergoing the standard procedure (212 versus 316 mL, P = 0.001), and the operative times were comparable. The length of the hospital stay was significantly shorter for the minimally invasive technique group (5.9 versus 7.8 days, P < 0.001). The complication rates were 23% and 25% for the standard technique and minimally invasive technique groups, respectively (P = 0.88). Patients undergoing minilaparotomy LDRH had a body mass index (24.0 kg/m(2)) similar to that of the hybrid technique patients (25.8 kg/m(2), P = 0.36), but the graft size was smaller (780 versus 948 mL, P = 0.22). In conclusion, minimally invasive LDRH can be performed without safety being impaired. LDRH with a 10-cm upper midline incision and without laparoscopic assistance may be appropriate for donors with a smaller body mass. Laparoscopic assistance can be added as needed for larger donors. This type of LDRH with a 10-cm incision is innovative and is recommended for experienced centers.