Vulnerability of small pediatric recipients to laparoscopic living donor kidneys

Primer on renal transplantation

Renal transplantation transforms chronically ill children with end stage renal disease (ESRD) into near normal resulting in improvement in nutrition, growth, neurodevelopment and quality of life, and is the goal of therapy. However, the benefits of transplantation come at a price of life-long treatment with immunosuppressive medications, increased risk of infections and malignancy. Children younger than 10 y of age have the best, and adolescents have the worst 5-y graft survival likely due to non-adherence with medications in the adolescents. Long-term complications include ongoing issues related to chronic kidney disease (CKD) and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality contributing to graft loss and shortened life expectancy, thus limiting the success of organ transplantation. Therefore, appropriate management of CKD and cardiovascular issues should be integral to the care of pediatric transplant patients. The other ongoing challenges include organ shortage, prevention and treatment of late acute rejections and chronic graft dysfunction, discovering reliable noninvasive immune monitoring tools, improving adherence, psychosocial rehabilitation, and the elusive goal of tolerance.

Identification of risk factors for vascular thrombosis may reduce early renal graft loss: a review of recent literature

Renal graft survival has improved over the past years, mainly owing to better immunosuppression. Vascular thrombosis, though rare, therefore accounts for up to one third of early graft loss. We assess current literature on transplantation, identify thrombosis risk factors, and discuss means of avoiding thrombotic events and saving thrombosed grafts. The incidence of arterial thrombosis was reported to 0.2–7.5% and venous thrombosis 0.1–8.2%, with the highest incidence among children and infants, and the lowest in living donor reports. The most significant risk factors for developing thrombosis were donor-age below 6 or above 60 years, or recipient-age below 5-6 years, per- or postoperative hemodynamic instability, peritoneal dialysis, diabetic nephropathy, a history of thrombosis, deceased donor, or >24 hours cold ischemia. Multiple arteries were not a risk factor, and a right kidney graft was most often reported not to be. Given the thrombosed kidney graft is diagnosed in time, salvage is possible by urgent reoperation and thrombectomy. Despite meticulous attentions to reduce thrombotic risk factors, thrombosis cannot be entirely prevented and means to an early detection of this complication is desirable in order to save the kidneys through prompt reoperation. Microdialysis may be a new tool for this.

Is laparoscopic donation safe for paediatric recipients?--a study of 85 paediatric recipients comparing open and laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

INTRODUCTION

The safety of adult laparoscopic donor nephrectomy remains controversial with respect to paediatric recipients with few data existing about its efficacy. Small studies have shown no difference in graft survival when compared with open techniques, but previous data from United Network for Organ Sharing suggests a higher incidence of rejection in laparoscopically procured kidneys.

METHODS

We examined the outcome in a total of 85 consecutive paediatric renal recipients, comparing 46 recipients of laparoscopically procured kidneys (performed over a 3-year period, 2004-07) to a historical control of 39 open donor recipients. Thirty-seven laparoscopic donors were by the hand-assisted technique.

RESULTS

Mean recipient age was 9.8 (SD 5.04) years in the laparoscopic group and 10.4 (SD 4.67) years in the open group (P = 0.617). Two patients had delayed graft function in the laparoscopic group (4.3%) and one (2.5%) in the open group (P = 0.562). At 1 year follow-up, there was 100% graft survival in the laparoscopic group compared to 92% (P = 0.093) in the open group. Incidence of biopsy-proven acute rejection within 1 year of transplant was 26% (16 episodes in 12 patients) in the laparoscopic group compared to 41% (29 episodes in 16 patients) in the open group (P = 0.219). There were no deaths in the laparoscopic group but there were three deaths (7.6%) in the open group (P = 0.093).

CONCLUSIONS

Our experience of laparoscopic kidney donation for paediatric recipients suggests excellent outcome with no difference in rejection rate or graft survival compared to open donation. Laparoscopic donation is the optimal method of kidney procurement for paediatric recipients.

Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: the pediatric recipient in a dual-site program

BACKGROUND

At our institution, laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (LLDN) is done at a different hospital site than pediatric recipient transplantation, whereas open donor nephrectomy (OLDN) is done in the adjacent operating room. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety of a dual-site renal transplantation program by comparing the outcomes of pediatric recipients of LLDN vs. OLDN.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of consecutive pediatric recipients (n = 10) of LLDN (June 2002 to June 2005) compared to the 10 most recent pediatric recipients of OLDN (March 2001 to June 2005). Renal function was assessed with calculated creatinine clearance using the Schwartz formula and the following outcomes were assessed: delayed graft function, ureteral complications, acute rejection and patient and graft survival. Results are expressed as median (IQR).

RESULTS

When comparing the laparoscopic vs. open group, there were no significant differences in recipient age, height, weight, preoperative calculated creatinine clearance and warm ischemia time. Twelve month postoperative creatinine clearance was 88 ml/min/1.73 m(2) (57-99) in the laparoscopic group (n = 8) and 66 ml/min/1.73 m(2) (60-86) in the open group (n = 9), p = 0.2. In the LLDN group vs. the OLDN group, delayed graft function was 0% vs. 10% (p = 1.0), ureteral complications were 20% vs. 30% (p = 1.0), and acute rejection was 20% vs. 40% (p = 0.6). In the laparoscopic group, one-yr patient and graft survival were both 100%, as compared to 100% and 89%, respectively, in the open group.

CONCLUSION

A dual-site laparoscopic donor nephrectomy program is not associated with adverse pediatric recipient outcomes when compared to a same-site open donor approach.

Laparoscopic versus open renal procurement for pediatric recipients of living donor renal transplantation

Despite reports demonstrating the safety of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) for pediatric recipients of renal transplants, recent evidence has challenged using LDN for recipients 5 years of age or younger. We retrospectively reviewed the records of all pediatric recipients of living donor renal transplants from September 2000 through August 2004. We compared those who received allografts recovered by LDN (n = 34) with those recovered by open donor nephrectomy (ODN, n = 26). Outcomes of interest included operative complications, postoperative renal function, the incidence of delayed graft function or episodes of acute rejection and long-term graft function. Donor and recipient demographic data were similar for the LDN and ODN groups. Serum creatinine and calculated creatinine clearance were not significantly different between groups both in the early postoperative period and at long-term follow-up (p > 0.142). Rates of delayed graft function and acute rejection did not differ between groups. Among recipients aged 5 years old or younger stratified by donor technique (9 LDN, 5 ODN recipients), no difference was noted in graft outcomes both early and long-term (p > 0.079). At our center, pediatric LDN recipients have graft outcomes comparable to those of ODN recipients. At experienced centers, we recommend continued use of LDN for pediatric recipients of all ages.