A comparison of technique modifications in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

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.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic retroperitoneal donor nephrectomy: a safe and efficient improvement

PURPOSE

Reducing operative injuries is important in living donor nephrectomy. The robot-assisted transperitoneal approach has some advantages than traditional laparoscopic techniques. However, longer operation time and risks of abdominal complications indicate the need for improved techniques. The aim of this study is to present the robot-assisted laparoscopic retroperitoneal donor nephrectomy and evaluate its safety and feasibility.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study. From June 2016 to December 2020, 218 living donors underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic retroperitoneal donor nephrectomy. Perioperative data such as operation time, warm ischemia time, length of stay and complications were collected and analyzed. To evaluate the feasibility of this surgical technique, the cumulative summation method was used to construct a learning curve.

RESULTS

There were 60 male and 158 female donors aged 36-72 years, with an average age of 53.1 ± 6.8 years. Three patients (1.4%) were converted to open surgery. The mean operation time was 115.4 ± 41.9 min, the warm ischemia time was 206.6 ± 146.7 s, and the length of stay was 4.1 ± 1.4 days. Complications were reported in 22 patients (10.1%), three of whom (1.4%) had Clavien‒Dindo IIIa complications. No ileus occurred. No donors were readmitted. Four patients had delayed graft function. The cumulative summation curve showed that the number needed to reach proficiency was 33. The operation time and warm ischemia time after technical proficiency were 100.4 ± 21.6 min and 142.5 ± 50.7 s, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Robot-assisted laparoscopic retroperitoneal donor nephrectomy is a safe and efficient technique that offers advantages of shorter operation time and no abdominal organ interference.

Renal Transplantation: Pretransplant Workup, Surgical Techniques, and Surgical Anatomy

End-stage renal disease continues to grow worldwide, and renal transplantation remains the primary and most effective treatment to handle this burden. Living-donor transplantation is the ideal mechanism for transplant recipients to have a successful allograft but carries both medical and surgical risks. Cadaveric kidneys have their own risks and can have a high rate of success as well. Multimodality imaging is crucial and has improved greatly during the last 20 years. Finally, a robust understanding of current surgical techniques can facilitate better postoperative imaging when early complications are a consideration.

Laparoscopic Living Donor Nephrectomy: A Single Center Comparison of Three Different Techniques

Background and Objectives

In this study, we compare three different surgical approaches at a single institution. Pure laparoscopic donor nephrectomy with Pfannenstiel incision (PLDN) was compared with hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy via midline hand port (HALDNM) and hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy via left iliac hand port (HALDNL).

Methods

This study included all laparoscopic left donor nephrectomies performed at our institution between January 1, 2020 and December 31, 2021. Donor characteristics including age, sex, body mass index, number of renal arteries, duration of surgical procedure, warm ischemia time (WIT), and length of hospital stay were compared. Cosmetic scores were calculated by totaling the length of all incisions placed. Postoperative complications within 90 days were compared.

Results

During the study period 71 laparoscopic donor nephrectomies were performed of which 26 were HALDNM, 24 were HALDNL, and 21 were PLDN. Donor characteristics were similar in all three groups. Total operative time was significantly lower in HALDNM (181 minutes) than PLDN (233 minutes) and HALDNL (242 minutes) (p < 0.001). The WIT was comparable in all three groups: HALDNL (7.2 minutes), PLDN (4.1 minutes), and HALDM (4.9 minutes) (p = 0.913). Median cosmetic score was significantly better in the PLDN group (8.2 cm) when compared to HALDNM (11.1 cm) and HALDNL (9.9 cm) (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Our results show that all three technical modifications of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy are safe and feasible with good postoperative outcomes. HALDNM has the added benefit of decreased operative time while PLDN has a cosmetic advantage.

Hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy offers more liberal use of right kidneys: lessons learned from 565 cases - a retrospective single-center study

The introduction of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy caused a shift toward' left donor nephrectomy. Some centers report a significantly low rate of endoscopic right donor nephrectomy. Hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy (HARP-DN) was introduced as a novel surgical technique, which aims to avoid intra-abdominal complications. It was also reported to provide technical advantages for right-sided DN. In this retrospective single-center study, we evaluated the impact of HARP-DN technique on utilization of right-sided DNs. After the implementation of HARP-DN on February 2009, a total of 565 DNs were performed until December 2015. The introduction of HARP-DN technique resulted in an immediate increase in the utilization of right kidneys from 6.1% to an average of 19.6% annually. The donors 'outcome was similar to the left-sided and right-sided DN groups, excluding the increased incidence of incisional hernias in left kidney donors. None of the donors developed intra-abdominal complications. In conclusion, the implementation of HARP technique significantly increased the use of right-sided DNs, which enables a more liberal use of donors in LDKT.

The Association between Body Composition Measurements and Surgical Complications after Living Kidney Donation

Obesity is considered a risk factor for peri- and postoperative complications. Little is known about this risk in overweight living kidney donors. The aim of this study was to assess if anthropometric body measures and/or surgical determinants are associated with an increased incidence of peri- and postoperative complications after nephrectomy. We included 776 living kidney donors who donated between 2008 and 2018 at the University Medical Center Groningen. Prenephrectomy measures of body composition were body mass index (BMI), body surface area (BSA), waist circumference, weight, and waist–hip ratio. Incidence and severity of peri- and postoperative complications were assessed using the Comprehensive Complication Index. Mean donor age was 53 ± 11 years; 382 (49%) were male, and mean BMI at donor screening was 26.2 ± 3.41 kg/m². In total, 77 donors (10%) experienced peri- and postoperative complications following donor nephrectomy. Male sex was significantly associated with fewer surgical complications (OR 0.59, 0.37–0.96 95%CI, p = 0.03) in binomial logistic regression analyses. Older age (OR: 1.03, 1.01–1.05 95%CI, p = 0.02) and a longer duration of surgery (OR: 1.01, 1.00–1.01 95%CI, p = 0.02) were significantly associated with more surgical complications in binomial logistic regression analyses. Multinomial logistic regression analyses did not identify any prenephrectomy measure of body composition associated with a higher risk of surgical complications. This study shows that higher prenephrectomy BMI and other anthropometric measures of body composition are not significantly associated with peri- and postoperative complications following living donor nephrectomy.

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

Background

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

Material/Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Outcomes and surgical complications following living-donor renal transplantation using kidneys retrieved with trans-peritoneal or retro-peritoneal hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy

The best minimally invasive procedure for living-donor kidney retrieval remains debated. Our objective was to assess trans-peritoneal (TP) and retro-peritoneal (RP) hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN). In this single-center retrospective study, we analyzed results from 317 living-donor renal transplants (RT) performed between 2008 and 2016. Donor and recipient outcomes were compared between TP-HALDN (n = 235) and RP-HALDN (n = 82). Conversion to open nephrectomy (0.4% vs 0%; P = 1.000), intra-operative complications (1.7% vs 1.2%; P = 1.000), and 1-year overall post-operative complications (11.9% vs 17.1%; P = .258) rates were similar in TP-HALDN and RP-HALDN. Overall surgical site infections were higher in RP-HALDN (6.1% vs 1.7%; P = .053), whereas incisional hernias were only recorded following TP-HALDN (3.4% vs 0%; P = .118). The duration of the procedure was 11-minute shorter for TP-HALDN than RP-HALDN (P < .001) but extraction time was equivalent (2, IQR 1.5-2.5 minutes; P = 1.000). RT following TP-HALDN and RP-HALDN showed comparable one-year death-censored allograft survival (97% vs 98.8%; P = .685), primary non-function (0.4% vs 0%; P = .290), delayed graft function (1.3% vs 4.9%; P = .077), and urological complications (2.6% vs 4.9%; P = .290) rates. In our series, donor and recipient outcomes were not substantially affected by the approach used for donor nephrectomy. TP-HALDN and RP-HALDN were both safe and effective.

Single Stapler Technique for Vascular Control in Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy

BACKGROUND

Recent advancements in surgical instruments, energy sources, vascular staplers, and increased experience altogether led to several modifications in the laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) technique. In the conventional approach, the renal artery and vein are divided separately by vascular stapling. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of using single vascular stapling technique for dividing the renal artery and vein simultaneously.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent LDN performed by the same surgeon between January 2018 and January 2020 were included. Demographic data, body mass index, number of arteries and veins, vascular division technique, estimated blood loss, surgical time, warm ischemia time, surgical complications, and length of hospital stay were recorded. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the characteristics of the dataset.

RESULTS

A total of 196 donors were included in the cohort. The mean age was 44.5 years (19-80 years, standard deviation: 13.2). A total of 132 donors (82.65%) underwent left-sided LDN, and 34 (17.35%) underwent right-sided LDN. The mean surgical time and warm ischemia time were 68.4 ± 24.7 (32-116) and 2.8 ± 1.2 (1.6-4.0) minutes, respectively. Two cases were converted to open donor nephrectomy (1.02%). The single stapling technique was successfully performed in 168 (85.7%) donors with a single renal artery and vein.

CONCLUSION

Single stapling for the concurrent division of the renal artery and vein in the setting of LDN seems to be a safe and feasible approach. It also has the potential to shorten warm ischemia time and reduce the cost of LDN.

Prophylaxis of Wound Infections-antibiotics in Renal Donation (POWAR): A UK Multicentre Double Blind Placebo Controlled Randomised Trial

BACKGROUND

Postoperative infection after hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN) confers significant morbidity to a healthy patient group. Current UK guidelines cite a lack of evidence for routine antibiotic prophylaxis. This trial assessed if a single preoperative antibiotic dose could reduce post HALDN infections.

METHODS

Eligible donors were randomly and blindly allocated to preoperative single-dose intravenous co-amoxiclav or saline. The primary composite endpoint was clinical evidence of any postoperative infection at 30 days, including surgical site infection (SSI), urinary tract infection (UTI), and lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI).

FINDINGS

In all, 293 participants underwent HALDN (148 antibiotic arm and 145 placebo arm). Among them, 99% (291/293) completed follow-up. The total infection rate was 40.7% (59/145) in the placebo group and 23% (34 of 148) in the antibiotic group (P = 0.001). Superficial SSIs were 20.7% (30/145 patients) in the placebo group versus 10.1% (15/148 patients) in the antibiotic group (P = 0.012). LRTIs were 9% (13/145) in the placebo group and 3.4% (5/148) in the antibiotic group (P = 0.046). UTIs were 4.1% (6/145) in the placebo group and 3.4% (5/148) in the antibiotic group (P = 0.72).Antibiotic prophylaxis conferred a 17.7% (95% confidence interval 7.2%-28.1%), absolute risk reduction in developing postoperative infection, with 6 donors requiring treatment to prevent 1 infection.

INTERPRETATION

Single-dose preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis dramatically reduces post-HALDN infection rates, mainly impacting SSIs and LRTIs.

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.

Introducing Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy after Experience in Hand-Assisted Retroperitoneoscopic Approach

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (RALDN) can help to improve donor safety by enabling enhanced precision, flexibility, control, and vision. We are presenting our initial series during the introduction of RALDN by comparing our adopted surgical technique, hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy (HARPDN), performed at the same time interval.

METHODS

We performed 12 RALDN and 27 HARPDN with Pfannenstiel incision between March 2018 and July 2018. We evaluated the demographics, operation duration, warm/cold ischemia time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, and donor and recipient serum creatinine levels retrospectively.

RESULTS

Demographics including sex, mean of age, and body mass index of the 2 groups were similar. Five cases were right sided nephrectomy in the HARPDN group. We performed only left sided donor nephrectomy in the RALDN group. The duration of operation and warm ischemia time was significantly longer in the robot-assisted group (P < .001). Postoperative major complications were not detected in any of the donors. The function of the transplanted kidneys in both groups was good on the fifth day and 1 month postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

We introduced the robot-assisted approach for donor candidates who are not suitable candidates for HARPDN in our center. The operation time and warm ischemia time was longer in the RALDN group, but it did not have any impact on outcome. The robot-assisted donor nephrectomy technique can be introduced safely in centers experienced in the hand-assisted approach.

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.

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.

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.

Hand-assisted living-donor nephrectomy: a retrospective comparison of two techniques

BACKGROUND

Living-donor nephrectomy (LDN) is challenging, as surgery is performed on healthy individuals. Minimally invasive techniques for LDN have become standard in most centers. Nevertheless, numerous techniques have been described with no consensus on which is the superior approach. Both hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic (HARS) and hand-assisted laparoscopic (HALS) LDNs are performed at Zurich University Hospital. The aim of this study was to compare these two surgical techniques in terms of donor outcome and graft function.

METHOD

Retrospective single-center analysis of 60 consecutive LDNs (HARS n = 30; HALS n = 30) from June 2010 to May 2012, including a one-year follow-up of the recipients.

RESULTS

There was no mortality in either group and little difference in the overall complication rates. Median warm ischemia time (WIT) was significantly shorter in the HARS group. The use of laxatives and the incidence of postoperative vomiting were significantly greater in the HALS group. There was no difference between right- and left-sided nephrectomies in terms of donor outcome and graft function.

CONCLUSIONS

Both techniques appear safe for both donors and donated organs. The HARS technique is associated with a shorter WIT and a reduced incidence of postoperative paralytic ileus. Therefore, we consider HARS LDN a valuable alternative to HALS LDN.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic retroperitoneal donor nephrectomy: A single-institution experience of over 500 cases-Operative technique and clinical outcomes

OBJECTIVE

Although there are several variations of laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomies, there is no consensus as to the best technique. Our objective was to describe our technique and assess the outcomes of our approach to hand-assisted laparoscopic retroperitoneal donor nephrectomies.

METHODS

From July 2001 to October 2015, 507 consecutive hand-assisted laparoscopic retroperitoneal donor nephrectomies were performed. Their clinical information was retrospectively reviewed including warm ischemia time, skin incision to kidney ready time, estimated blood loss, adverse intraoperative events, and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

Mean incision time to kidney removal was 135 minutes (55-260), mean warm ischemia time was 125 seconds (30-390), and mean blood loss was 83 mL (20-500). Average length of stay was 3 days (1-6). There were no significant differences between left and right kidney donors based on demographics, length of hospital stay, or warm ischemia time. There were no conversions to open surgery. Complications occurred in 4.9% of patients (25/507), including 4 cases of perioperative bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

This is a single-center series describing the safety and efficacy of the hand-assisted laparoscopic retroperitoneal donor nephrectomy for both right and left sides. It does not require intraperitoneal manipulation and allows for safe extraction of either kidney with minimal warm ischemia time.

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.

Deep neuromuscular blockade improves surgical conditions during low-pressure pneumoperitoneum laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

Background

Evidence indicates that low-pressure pneumoperitoneum (PNP) reduces postoperative pain and analgesic consumption. A lower insufflation pressure may hamper visibility and working space. The aim of the study is to investigate whether deep neuromuscular blockade (NMB) improves surgical conditions during low-pressure PNP.

Methods

This study was a blinded randomized controlled multicenter trial. 34 kidney donors scheduled for laparoscopic donor nephrectomy randomly received low-pressure PNP (6 mmHg) with either deep (PTC 1–5) or moderate NMB (TOF 0–1). In case of insufficient surgical conditions, the insufflation pressure was increased stepwise. Surgical conditions were rated by the Leiden-Surgical Rating Scale (L-SRS) ranging from 1 (extremely poor) to 5 (optimal).

Results

Mean surgical conditions were significantly better for patients allocated to a deep NMB (SRS 4.5 versus 4.0; p < 0.01). The final insufflation pressure was 7.7 mmHg in patients with deep NMB as compared to 9.1 mmHg with moderate NMB (p = 0.19). The cumulative opiate consumption during the first 48 h was significantly lower in patients receiving deep NMB, while postoperative pain scores were similar. In four patients allocated to a moderate NMB, a significant intraoperative complication occurred, and in two of these patients a conversion to an open procedure was required.

Conclusions

Our data show that deep NMB facilitates the use of low-pressure PNP during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy by improving the quality of the surgical field. The relatively high incidence of intraoperative complications indicates that the use of low pressure with moderate NMB may compromise safety during LDN. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT 02602964.

Should hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic nephrectomy replace the standard laparoscopic technique for living donor nephrectomy? A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

We performed this meta-analysis to compare hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic (HARP) and traditional laparoscopic (TLS) techniques for living donor nephrectomy.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Cochrane Central, EMBASE, and Web of science for prospective studies, comparing HARP and TLS techniques. Data were extracted from eligible studies and pooled as risk ratios (RR) or standardized mean difference (SMD), using RevMan software (version 5.3 for windows). We performed a sensitivity analysis to test the robustness of our evidence and a subgroup analysis to stratify intraoperative complications on Clavien-Dindo score.

RESULTS

Seven studies (498 patients) were included in the final analysis. HARP was superior to TLS in terms of shortening the operative duration (SMD = -0.84, 95% CI [-1.18 to -0.50]) and warm ischemia time (SMD = -0.93, 95% CI [-1.13 to -0.72]). There was no significant difference between HARP and TLS in terms of blood loss (SMD = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.50 to 0.76]), hospital stay (SMD = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.70 to 0.15]) or graft survival (RR = 0.97, 95% CI [0.92 to 1.02]). The overall risk ratio of intraoperative complications did not differ significantly between the two groups (RR = 0.62, 95% CI [0.31 to 1.21]).

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis shows that HARP was associated with a shorter surgery duration and less warm ischemia time than TLS. However, no significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of graft survival or intraoperative complication rates. We recommend HARP over TLS for living donor nephrectomy; however, future studies with larger sample sizes are recommended to compare both techniques in terms of operative safety and quality of life outcomes.

A comparison of technique modifications in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of different technique modifications in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analyses.

DATA SOURCES

Searches of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Central from January 1st 1997 until April 1st 2014.

STUDY DESIGN

All cohort studies and randomized clinical trials comparing fully laparoscopic donor nephrectomy with modifications of the standard technique including hand-assisted, retroperitoneoscopic and single port techniques, were included.

DATA-EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS

The primary outcome measure was the number of complications. Secondary outcome measures included: conversion to open surgery, first warm ischemia time, estimated blood loss, graft function, operation time and length of hospital stay. Each technique modification was compared with standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Data was pooled with a random effects meta-analysis using odds ratios, weighted mean differences and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals. To assess heterogeneity, the I2 statistic was used. First, randomized clinical trials and cohort studies were analyzed separately, when data was comparable, pooled analysis were performed.

RESULTS

31 studies comparing laparoscopic donor nephrectomy with other technique modifications were identified, including 5 randomized clinical trials and 26 cohort studies. Since data of randomized clinical trials and cohort studies were comparable, these data were pooled. There were significantly less complications in the retroperitoneoscopic group as compared to transperitoneal group (OR 0.52, 95%CI 0.33-0.83, I2 = 0%). Hand-assisted techniques showed shorter first warm ischemia and operation times.

CONCLUSIONS

Hand-assistance reduces the operation and first warm ischemia times and may improve safety for surgeons with less experience in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. The retroperitoneoscopic approach was significantly associated with less complications. However, given the, in general, poor to intermediate quality and considerable heterogeneity in the included studies, further high-quality studies are required.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The review protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database before the start of the review process (CRD number 42013006565).