Techniques in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

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.

Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Living Donor Nephrectomy: The University of Florence Technique

Objective: To provide a step-by-step overview of the University of Florence technique for robotic living donor nephrectomy (LDN), focusing on its technical nuances and perioperative outcomes.

Methods: A dedicated robotic LDN program at our Institution was codified in 2012. Data from patients undergoing robotic LDN from 2012 to 2019 were prospectively collected. All robotic LDNs were performed by a highly experienced surgeon, using the da Vinci Si robotic platform in a three-arm configuration. In this report we provide a detailed overview of our surgical technique for robotic LDN. The main objective of the study was to evaluate the technical feasibility and safety of the technique, including perioperative surgical complications rate and mid-term functional outcomes.

Results: Overall, 36 patients undergoing robotic LDNs were included in the study. Of these, 28 (78%) were left LDNs. Median (IQR) donor pre-operative eGFR was 88 (75.6–90) ml/min/1.73 m². In all cases, robotic LDN was completed without need of conversion. The median (IQR) overall operative time was 230 (195–258) min, while the median console time was 133 (IQR 117-166) min. The median (IQR) warm ischemia time was 175 (140–255) s. No intraoperative adverse events or 90-d major surgical complications were recorded. At a median (IQR) follow-up of 24 months (IQR 11-46), median (IQR) eGFR patients undergoing in living donor nephrectomy was 57.4 (47.9; 63.9) ml/min/1.73 m².

Conclusions: In our experience, robotic LDN is technically feasible and safe. The use of robotic surgery for LDN may provide distinct advantages for surgeons while ensuring optimal donors' perioperative and functional outcomes.

Structured introduction of retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy provides a high level of safety and reduces the physical burden for the donor compared to an anterior mini incision: A cohort study

INTRODUCTION

A major goal in living donor kidney transplantation is to reduce the physical burden for the donor. Key-hole surgery for donor nephrectomy is a safe procedure, but concerns regarding donor safety during the learning phase might be the reason for surgeons' reluctance to change to a minimal invasive approach.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We analyzed the first 100 retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomies (RPDN) performed at our institution and compared the results to the last 50 mini incision donor nephrectomies (MIDN) regarding donor and recipient outcome, and analyzed the learning curves of RPDN.

RESULTS

The learning phase of RPDN was very short with significantly shorter operative times compared to MIDN (118 vs. 175 min, p < 0.001) and significantly fewer surgical complications (p = 0.03). RPDN patients rated the physical burden (p = 0.01) as lower, and they felt less bothered by the surgical scar (p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

Introducing RPDN is safe, even during the learning phase of the surgeons. Changing surgical technique from MIDN to RPDN reduces the surgical burden of the procedure. Our study might encourage more transplant centres to adopt a minimally invasive approach.

Endo-Satinsky Clamp Hybrid In Situ Perfusion in Retroperitoneoscopic Donor Nephrectomy For Right-sided Kidney

OBJECTIVE

To introduce our hybrid technique using an endo-Satinsky clamp and in situ cold perfusion for right-sided retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy (RDN) and to investigate efficacy and safety compared with those standard right-sided RDN.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 16 transplant donors who underwent right-sided RDN from January 2016 to January 2018. Donors received either hybrid RDN (n = 6) or standard RDN (n = 10). Perioperative outcomes, including operative time, estimated blood loss, warm ischemic time, hospital stay, length of renal vein obtained as well as postoperative renal function of their recipients were collected and compared between the hybrid RDN and standard RDN groups.

RESULTS

Procedures were performed successfully in all 16 donors. The hybrid RDN group required longer operation times (135 vs 115 minutes), demonstrated increased blood loss (175 vs 140 mL), but shorter warm ischemic times (1.5 vs 5.5 minutes) and resulted in longer length of the procured renal vein (2.8 vs 1.7 cm) as compared with the standard RDN group. No difference in perioperative complication rates was witnessed between the 2 groups. Also, there were no significant differences in serum creatinine levels and glomerular filtration rates of recipients between the 2 groups at both postoperative day 3 and 1 month.

CONCLUSION

The hybrid RDN potentially extends the length of the right donor renal vein. The perioperative outcomes of hybrid RDN were comparable with those of the standard RDN. This hybrid technique can be a technically safe and feasible option for right kidney donation.

Evaluation of the Learning Curve of Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy

BACKGROUND In this study, we analyzed the learning curve of hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN). MATERIAL AND METHODS The first 198 consecutive donors (110 cases by expert surgeon and 88 cases by newbie surgeon) operated on using HALDN were included in this study. The primary outcome measures were warm ischemic time (WIT), total operation time and estimated blood loss (EBL). The secondary outcome measures included length of hospital stay (LOS), graft outcome, and surgery-related complications. We used the cumulative sum (CUSUM) method to generate learning curves. RESULTS Except for WIT, all operative and convalescence parameters of donors and graft outcomes were similar for the 2 groups, including the total operation time (174.13 minutes vs. 171.75 minutes, P=0.140), EBL (108.27 cc vs. 116.82 cc, P=0.494), LOS (4.80 days vs. 4.92 days, P=0.144), and overall rates of intraoperative and postoperative complications (P>0.05). A significant difference was observed in WIT between the 2 groups (140.59 sec vs. 106.85 sec, P=0.027). Upon visual assessment of the CUSUM plots, a downward inflexion point for decreasing WIT was observed in 4 cases, total operation time in 12 cases, and EBL in 15 cases. CONCLUSIONS HALDN has a relatively short learning curve and similar results may be expected from newbie urologists who are trained in minimally invasive surgery fellowship.

A Novel Method for Repositioning Suboptimally Preoperatively Placed Nephrostomy Tubes for Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Without Renal Repuncture

Objective: Nephrostomy tubes (NTs) inserted in emergency settings by interventional radiologists are frequently unsuitable for subsequent percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). We report a novel method of adjusting these NTs to be used as PCNL tracts and avoid renal repuncture. Patients and Methods: A retrospective search of 981 consecutive PCNLs performed in our institution between 2002 and 2017 identified all patients with preoperatively inserted NTs. The NTs unsuitable for PCNL were adjusted by a novel approach in which a 5-mm incision was made at the ideal puncture location (IPL) as indicated under fluoroscopic guidance. The preinserted NT was removed after passing a guidewire into the kidney. A dissector clamp was introduced through the entry wound of the removed NTs to bluntly dissect a retroperitoneal tunnel and pull out the distal tip of guidewire through the IPL, while its proximal segment was maintained in the kidney. The newly positioned guidewire was used for PCNL tract preparation without repuncturing the kidney. Results: The NTs were located in the mid calix, lower calix, and renal pelvis in 6 (26%), 13 (57%), and 4 (17%) cases, respectively. The NT was suitable for PCNL in 5 (22%) cases, a new renal access was performed in 3 (13%), and the novel adjustment approach was used in 15 (65%), all successfully. The place of entry was moved an average of 6 cm (range 47) and the angle between the tract axis and the calix axis was reduced by 65° in average. The procedure was done uneventfully in an average of 4 minutes. Conclusions: The novel method of adjusting preoperatively inserted NTs for PCNL by repositioning their original entry location to the IPL offers the possibility of avoiding kidney repuncture. It is feasible, safe, and easy to implement, and it spares potential morbidity related to additional puncturing of the kidney.

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.

Recent advances of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery in urological surgery

Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery designates a surgical procedure that utilizes one or more patent natural orifices of the body with the intention to puncture a hollow viscera in order to enter the abdominal cavity. First carried out at the beginning of the 2000s in experimental models, it can be considered the natural evolution of laparoscopy towards the ideal of scarless surgery, as the avoidance of a large abdominal scar is associated with better cosmetic results and better recovery. However, the technology currently available does not allow the performance of complete pure natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery procedures. The surgical tools used are not specially designed for this approach, so difficulties in retracting organs, bleeding control and clashing of instruments are the main obstacle surgeons face. For this reason, the current available technique is the so-called hybrid approach, where a natural orifice approach is combined with some abdominal trocars, using the natural orifice as the exit door for the specimen removal. As not many comparative studies have been published evaluating the advantages of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery in front of traditional laparoscopic surgery, a review of the history of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery, and an assessment of the available evidence of this technique regarding renal and urological pelvic surgery are performed in this article.