Robot-Assisted versus Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy: A Comparison of 250 Cases

Effective and safe implementation of robot-assisted donor nephrectomy by experienced laparoscopic surgeons

BACKGROUND

In June 2021, the first robot-assisted donor nephrectomy (RADN) was performed at the Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), the Netherlands. The goal of this study was to investigate whether this procedure has been implemented safely and efficiently.

METHODS

RADN was retrospectively compared to laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) performed during the same time period (June 2021 until November 2022). Patients were assigned to RADN depending on the availability of the da Vinci robot and surgical team. The studied endpoints were postoperative complications, operative time, estimated blood loss, warm ischemic time (WIT), and postoperative pain experience. For analysis, the Student's t-test and Chi-squared test were used for, respectively, continuous and categorical data.

RESULTS

Forty RADN were compared to 63 LDN. Total insufflation time was significantly longer in RADN compared to LDN (188 min (169-214) versus 172 min (144-194); p = 0.02). Additionally, WIT was also found to be significantly higher in the robot-assisted group (04:54 min vs. 04:07 min; p < 0.01). No statistical differences were found in postoperative outcomes (eGFR of the recipient at 3-month follow-up, RADN 54.08 mL/min ±18.79 vs. LDN 56.41 mL/min ±16.82; p = 0.52), pain experience, and complication rate.

CONCLUSION

RADN was safely and efficiently implemented at the LUMC. It's results were not inferior to laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Operative time and warm ischemic times were longer in RADN. This may relate to a learning curve effect. No clinically relevant effect on postoperative outcomes was observed.

Impact of donor smoking history on kidney transplant recipient outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Impact of donor smoking history on kidney transplant recipient outcomes is undefined.

METHODS

We systematically searched, critically appraised, and summarized associations between donor smoking and primary outcomes of death-censored and all-cause graft failure (DCGF, ACGF), and secondary outcomes of allograft histology, delayed graft function, serum creatinine, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and mortality. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Databases from 2000 to 2023. Risk of bias was assessed using Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies - of Exposure tool. Quality of evidence was assessed by Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group recommendations. We pooled results using inverse variance, random-effects model and reported hazard ratios for time-to-event outcomes or binomial proportions. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed with I2 statistic.

RESULTS

From 1785 citations, we included 17 studies. Donor smoking was associated with modestly increased DCGF (HR 1.05 (95% CI: 1.01, 1.09); I2 = 0%; low quality of evidence), predominantly in deceased donors, and ACGF in adjusted analyses (HR 1.12 (95% CI: 1.06, 1.19); I2 = 20%; very low quality of evidence). Other outcomes could not be pooled meaningfully.

CONCLUSIONS

Kidney donor smoking history was associated with modestly increased risk of death-censored graft failure and all-cause graft failure. This review emphasizes the need for further research, standardized reporting, and thoughtful consideration of donor factors like smoking in clinical decision-making on kidney utilization and allocation.

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.

[Robot-assisted kidney transplantation-what is new?]

BACKGROUND

The first robot-assisted kidney transplantation (RAKT) was conducted in 2010, and the first time in Germany in 2016. As more than 5 years have passed, current evidence, technological developments and the latest (German) experience are presented.

OBJECTIVES

The current evidence and experience of RAKT was investigated from an international and German perspective.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a systemic search, relevant publications were analyzed and compared with the experiences at a German urological transplant department.

RESULTS

From an international perspective, RAKT can now be considered a standard procedure at experienced departments, as more than 680 RAKT have been documented in Europe. The functional results are excellent with low complication rates and good mid- to long-term functional outcomes. Although RAKT was initially only performed with living organ donations, it has also been successfully conducted with cadaveric grafts. The surgical technique can be applied in challenging and complex situations, such as for arteriosclerotic recipient vessels or for kidney transplantations in children. Although RAKT is still not widely performed in Germany, the university hospital in Marburg, the third urological department in Germany, has successfully initiated a robotic transplant program.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to open kidney transplantation, robot-assisted kidney transplantation enables at least noninferior results. It further appears to translate the well-documented advantages of minimally invasive surgery to kidney transplantation. However, its spread throughout Germany is only slowly increasing, possibly because only a handful of urological departments still perform kidney transplantations.

Retrospective analysis of the perioperative outcome in living donor kidney transplantation with multiple renal arteries: does accessory vessel ligation affect the outcome?

PURPOSE

Accurate surgical reconstruction of arterial vascular supply is a crucial part of living kidney transplantation (LDKT). The presence of multiple renal arteries (MRA) in grafts can be challenging. In the present study, we investigated the impact of ligation versus anastomosis of small accessory graft arteries on the perioperative outcome.

METHODS

Clinical and radiological outcomes of 51 patients with MRA out of a total of 308 patients who underwent LDKT with MRA between 2011 and 2020 were stratified in two groups and analyzed. In group 1 (20 patients), ligation of accessory arteries (ARAs) and group 2 (31 patients) anastomosis of ARAs was performed.

RESULTS

Significant differences were observed in the anastomosis-, surgery-, and warm ischemia time (WIT) in favor of group 1. Students t-test showed comparable serum creatinine levels of 2.33 (± 1.75) to 1.68 (± 0.83) mg/dL in group 1 and 2.63 (± 2.47) to 1.50 (± 0.41) mg/dL in group 2, were seen from 1 week to 1 year after transplant. No increased rates of Delayed graft function (DGF), primary transplant dysfunction and transplant rejection were seen, but graft loss and revision rates were slightly higher when the ARAs were ligated. Analysis of Doppler sonography revealed that segmental perfusion deficits tend to regenerate during the clinical course.

CONCLUSION

Ligation of smaller accessory renal arteries may not affect the outcome of living kidney transplantation, except for a minor increase in the reoperation rate. Segmental perfusion deficits of the graft seem to regenerate in most cases as seen in Doppler sonography.

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.

Laparoscopic to robotic living donor nephrectomy: Is it time to change surgical technique?

BACKGROUND

We aimed to explore differences in outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic donor nephrectomies (LDN).

METHODS

This study compared robotic and laparoscopic surgical techniques for live donor nephrectomies in 153 patients at a single centre.

RESULTS

Left nephrectomies were more common in both groups, but with no significant difference between the groups (76.6% vs. 77.6%, p = 0.88). The robotic donor nephrectomies (RDN) group experienced significantly less blood loss (60 vs. 134 mL, p < 0.01), but warm ischaemia time was similar between groups (3.2 vs. 3.7 min, p = 0.54).The RDN group had decreased subjective pain scores (3.54 vs. 4.21, p = 0.04) and shorter length of hospitalisation (2.22 vs. 3.04 days, p < 0.01).There were also fewer complications in the RDN than the LDN group (4 vs. 8, p = 0.186).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that RDN is a safe and alternative to LDN. Decreased blood loss and hospital stays and fewer complications may reflect decreased tissue manipulation with robotic assistance.

Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy: superior outcomes after completion of the learning curve

The use of robots in donor nephrectomy has increased in recent years. However, whether robot-assisted methods have better outcomes than traditional laparoscopic methods and how surgical experience influences these outcomes remains unclear. This meta-analysis compares the outcomes of robot-assisted donor nephrectomy (RADN) with those of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) and to investigate the effects of surgical experience on these outcomes. A systematic literature search was conducted in Medline (through PubMed) and Web of Science databases. Perioperative data were extracted for meta-analysis. To assess the impact of the learning curve, a subgroup analysis was performed to compare outcomes between inexperienced and experienced surgeons. Seventeen studies with 6970 donors were included. Blood loss was lower (mean difference [MD] = - 13.28, p < 0.01) and the warm ischemia time was shorter (MD = - 0.13, p < 0.05) in the LDN group than the RADN group. There were no significant differences in terms of conversion to open surgery, operation time, surgical complications, hospital stay, costs, and delayed graft function between the groups. Subgroup analysis revealed that operation time (MD = - 1.09, p < 0.01) and length of hospital stay (MD = - 1.54, p < 0.05) were shorter and the rate of conversion to open surgery (odds ratios [OR] = 0.14, p < 0.0001) and overall surgical complications (OR = 0.23, p < 0.05) were lower in experienced RADN surgeons than in experienced LDN surgeons. Surgical experience enhances the perioperative outcomes following RADN more than it does following LDN. This suggests that RADN could be the method of choice for living donor nephrectomy as soon as surgeons gain sufficient experience in robotic surgery.

Robotic donor nephrectomy: optimizing outcomes beyond the limitations of laparoscopy

BACKGROUND

Robotic donor nephrectomy (RDN) has emerged as a safe alternate to laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN), offering improved visualization, instrument dexterity and ergonomics. There is still concern about how to safely transition from LDN to RDN.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of 150 consecutive living donor operations (75 LDN and 75 RDN) at our center, comparing the first 75 RDN's with the last 75 LDN's performed prior to the initiation of the robotic transplant program. Operative times and complications were used as surrogates of efficiency and safety, respectively, to estimate the learning curve with RDN.

RESULTS

RDN was associated with a longer total operative time (RDN 182 vs LDN 144 min; P < 0.0001) but a significantly shorter post-operative length of stay (RDN 1.8 vs LDN 2.1 days; P = 0.0213). Donor complications and recipient outcomes were the same between both groups. Learning curve of RDN was estimated to be about 30 cases.

CONCLUSIONS

RDN is a safe alternate to LDN with acceptable donor morbidity and no negative impact on recipient outcomes even during the early part of the RDN learning curve. Surgeon preferences for the robotic approach compared to traditional laparoscopy will require further scrutiny to improve ergonomics and operative efficiency.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy: A Retrospective Bicentric Comparison of Learning Curves and Surgical Outcomes From 2 High-volume European Centers

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) represents the gold-standard technique for kidney living donation, robotic donor nephrectomy (RDN) settled as another appealing minimally invasive technique over the past decades. A comparison between LDN and RDN outcomes was performed.

METHODS

RDN and LDN outcomes were compared, focusing on operative time and perioperative risk factors affecting surgery duration. Learning curves for both techniques were compared through spline regression and cumulative sum models.

RESULTS

The study analyzed 512 procedures (154 RDN and 358 LDN procedures) performed between 2010 and 2021 in 2 different high-volume transplant centers. The RDN group presented a higher prevalence of arterial variations (36.2 versus 22.4%; P  = 0.001) compared with the LDN cohort. No open conversions occurred; operative time (210 versus 195 min; P  = 0.011) and warm ischemia time (WIT; 230 versus 180 s; P  < 0.001) were longer in RDN. Postoperative complication rate was similar (8.4% versus 11.5%; P  = 0.49); the RDN group showed shorter hospital stay (4 versus 5 d; P  < 0.001). Spline regression models depicted a faster learning curve in the RDN group ( P  = 0.0002). Accordingly, cumulative sum analysis highlighted a turning point after about 50 procedures among the RDN cohort and after about 100 procedures among the LDN group.Higher body mass index resulted as an independent risk factor for longer operative time for both techniques; multiple arteries significantly prolonged operative time in LDN, whereas RDN was longer in right kidney procurements; both procedures were equally shortened by growing surgical experience.

CONCLUSIONS

RDN grants a faster learning curve and improves multiple vessel handling. Incidence of postoperative complications was low for both techniques.

Single Port Donor Nephrectomy Via Modified Pfannenstiel Incision: Initial Preclinical Experience in A Cadaveric Model and Description of Technique

OBJECTIVE

To describe the surgical technique for the single port (SP) transperitoneal donor nephrectomy through a modified Pfannenstiel incision using the da Vinci SP surgical system (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) on a cadaver.

PATIENTS & METHODS

In a male cadaver, the SP surgical system was used to perform transperitoneal donor nephrectomy. A 3 cm modified Pfannenstiel incision was made. Through the incision GelPOINT mini (Applied Medical, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA, USA) was inserted. The floating docking technique was used. Through the gel port, the dedicated 25 mm multichannel port and a 12 mm assistant port were introduced. The surgical steps for donor nephrectomy were performed in the following order. 1) Mobilization of the colon, 2) Identification of psoas muscle, ureter, and the gonadal vein, 3) hilum dissection, 4) perirenal dissection, 5) stapling the renal artery and renal vein, 6) removal of the kidney through the enlarged incision.

RESULTS

Transperitoneal SP donor nephrectomy was completed without any complications or capsulotomy. Additional ports were not needed. The total operative time was 63 minutes and 54 seconds. A good-quality kidney was harvested. Renal artery length was 4 cm.

CONCLUSION

We demonstrated the feasibility of single-port transperitoneal donor nephrectomy via modified Pfannenstiel incision, using the novel SP robotic platform. Further assessment is necessary in a clinical setting.

[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.