Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

A comparison of pre- and post-operative outcomes in living donors undergoing transperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy and open nephrectomy: a retrospective single-center study

BACKGROUND

Kidney transplantation is often regarded as the preferred therapy for end-stage renal disease. Several surgical procedures have been developed to reduce postoperative donor complications, while maintaining kidney quality.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the preoperative and postoperative outcomes of living kidney donors who underwent either transperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy or open nephrectomy.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Retrospective study conducted in Istanbul, Turkey.

METHODS

Fifty-five living-related kidney donors underwent nephrectomy and were retrospectively divided into two groups: 21 donors who underwent open nephrectomy (Group 1) and 34 donors who underwent transperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy (Group 2).

RESULTS

In comparison to the donors who underwent open nephrectomy, those who underwent transperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy had significantly shorter postoperative hospital stays (2.3 ± 0.2 versus 3.8 ± 0.8 days, P = 0.003), duration of urinary catheterization (1.2 ± 0.8 days versus 2.0 ± 0.7 days, P = 0.0001), operating times (210 ± 27 minutes versus 185 ± 24 minutes, P = 0.02), and less blood loss (86 ml versus 142 ml, P = 0.048). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups with regard to the estimated blood transfusion and warm ischemia time. The preoperative week, first postoperative week, and 1-month postoperative serum creatinine levels were comparable between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy can be safely performed at centers with expertise in laparoscopic surgery. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy has better outcomes than open donor nephrectomy in terms of length of hospital stay, duration of urinary catheterization, operating time, and blood loss.

A Quality Analysis of Donor Nephrectomy-Related Information on YouTube; Education or Misinformation?

INTRODUCTION

There currently remains an urgent need to increase living kidney donation to help mitigate the high demand for waitlisted kidney failure patients. Potential kidney donors can readily access social media, particularly YouTube, to gain basic knowledge about live donor nephrectomy surgical procedures. YouTube is an open-source platform where anyone can upload videos about any topic without peer review or quality control and is frequently used for disseminating health education. This study aims to assess the quality and accuracy of information regarding live donor nephrectomy on YouTube.

METHODS

A YouTube search was performed using the keywords "donor nephrectomy" and "kidney transplant." A total of 57 videos were assessed for eligibility criteria. Two validated tools for evaluating health information, the DISCERN and The Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Audiovisual Materials tools, were used to assess YouTube video information quality, understandability, and actionability.

RESULTS

A total of 53 of 57 screened videos were included in this study, with 4 videos being excluded for not being primarily in the English language. The mean (SD) DISCERN score was 23.3 (±8.3), and the mean (SD) The Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Audiovisual Materials Understandability and Actionability scores of 41.7% (±17.5) and 8.2% (±22.9%), respectively. Although videos were generally relevant in content to donor nephrectomy, videos lacked quality information and actionable items.

CONCLUSIONS

Information on living donor nephrectomies is prevalent on YouTube. Our assessment using quality measures of selected videos illustrates substantial misinformation on living donor nephrectomies. YouTube has the potential to be a source of reliable and accurate information on living donor nephrectomies and donations.

Chylous Ascites Following Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy: A Case Report

Chylous ascites is a form of peritoneal fluid accumulation that can arise from trauma or lymphatic obstruction. In this report, we present the first case of chylous ascites following laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in our high-volume kidney transplant center. The patient presented to the emergency department three weeks post-procedure with complaints of abdominal distention and discomfort, accompanied by constipation and nausea. Radiological confirmation of ascites was followed by paracentesis, which yielded 20 mL of milky fluid that was analyzed and confirmed as chylous ascites. A subsequent pigtail drain was inserted, resulting in a total drainage of 4 L of fluid. Chylous ascites is a rare complication of abdominal surgeries, with higher body mass index and the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status score system being significant risk factors. Conservative management involving diet modification is the initial therapy, with percutaneous drainage or more aggressive surgical interventions considered if conservative measures are not effective, with high success rates reported for these interventions. Here, we report a case of chylous ascites following donor nephrectomy as the first case reported from our region.

Evolution of Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy Techniques and Outcomes: A Single-Center Experience with More than 1000 Cases

Background

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) has evolved and has been established as a surgical standard of care for kidney transplantation.

Material/Methods

This study retrospectively reviews 1132 patients who underwent 4 different laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomies: hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy (HALDN), pure laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (PLDN), laparoendoscopic single-site plus 1-port donor nephrectomy (LESSOP-DN), and mini laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (MLDN).

Results

The mean estimated blood loss (EBL) for the HALDN group was meaningfully higher than those of LESSOP-DN and MLDN (57.5±52.2 mL versus 21.0±30.0 mL versus 18.2±28.7 mL) (P<0.001). The EBL for PLDN (53.3±35.3 mL) was also significantly higher than those of LESSOP-DN and MLDN (P<0.001). Length of stay (LOS) for HALDN was longer than that for LESSOP-DN (4.2±1.2 day versus 4.0±1.4 days, P=0.002). There was 1 intraoperative open conversion in the HALDN group and 2 HALDN surgeries that required postoperative exploratory laparotomy. LESSOP-DN had 3 (0.8%) postoperative incisional hernias. For recipients, the results revealed no significant differences between all 4 groups in terms of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and the 1-year graft failure rate.

Conclusions

The LESSOP-DN group was associated with a shorter incision length than those of HALDN and PLDN and shorter LOS than that of HALDN. Recipient results showed no meaningful difference regarding laparoscopic donor nephrectomy technique.

Donor and Recipient Outcomes following Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Living Donor Nephrectomy: A Systematic Review

Aims

We aimed to summarize available lines of evidence about intraoperative and postoperative donor outcomes following robotic-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (RALDN) as well as outcomes of graft and recipients.

Methods

A systematic review of PubMed/Medline, ISI Web of Knowledge, and Scopus databases was performed in May 2018. The following search terms were combined: nephrectomy, robotic, and living donor. We included full papers that met the following criteria: original research; English language; human studies; enrolling patients undergoing RALDN.

Results

Eighteen studies involving 910 patients were included in the final analysis. Mean overall operative and warm ischemia times ranged from 139 to 306 minutes and from 1.5 to 5.8 minutes, respectively. Mean estimated blood loss varied from 30 to 146 mL and the incidence of intraoperative complications ranged from 0% to 6.7%. Conversion rate varied from 0% to 5%. The mean hospital length of stay varied from 1 to 5.8 days and incidence of early postoperative complications varied from 0% to 15.7%. No donor mortality was observed. The incidence of delayed graft function was reported in 7 cases. The one- and 10-year graft loss rates were 1% and 22%, respectively.

Conclusions

Based on preliminary data, RALDN appears as a safe and effective procedure.

A retrospective analysis of complications of laparoscopic left donor nephrectomy using the Kocak's modification of Clavien-Dindo system

Introduction:

Kocak described a modification of Clavien-Dindo classification system (CDCS) for reporting procedure-related complications in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN). We used the Kocak modification in grading and reporting the severity of complications in patients who underwent LDN and in evaluating various parameters that predict them.

Methods:

In all, 1430 patients who underwent left LDN from 2000 to 2016 were included in this study. All data was retrospectively collected and analyzed for complications occurring in the postoperative period. All complications were classified according to the four grades of Kocak-modified CDCS.

Results:

124 patients (8.6%) suffered a total of 235 postoperative complications. Most of the complications were Grade I and Grade II (Grade I: 79.5% [n = 187] and Grade II 16.2% [n = 38]), 2.5% of the complications were Grade III (n = 6) and Kocak Grade IVa complications occurred in three patients. There was one death (Grade IVb: 0.4%, overall mortality rate: 0.06%). The incidence of complications was significantly greater for male patients, those with body mass index ≥25 kg/m², and if the operating surgeon had ≤ 1 year of experience in performing LDN surgery.

Conclusion:

LDN is a safe procedure with low morbidity. The rate of complications is 8.6% and most of these complications are of low grade. The use of a standardized system for reporting the complications of LDN allows appropriate comparison between reported data.

Can intraperitoneal bupivacaine decreases pain in patients undergoing laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy? A randomized control trial

PURPOSE

To evaluate effect of intraperitoneal bupivacaine on postoperative pain in patients undergoing laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy.

METHODS

Hundred patients undergoing laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy were included in the study and were divided randomly into two groups based on computer-generated randomization chart of fifty each. Patients were made familiar with VAS chart preoperatively. Group A received 20 mL of 0.5 % bupivacaine, while group B patients received 20 mL of 0.9 % normal saline intraperitoneally Postoperatively, patients were assessed based on VAS and requirement of rescue analgesic, hemodynamic parameters and presence of any adverse effects. Student's t test was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

At all-time interval, mean pain scores were higher in group B than group A. The difference between the mean pain scores was statistically significant (p < 0.05) at 0, 2 and 4 h. The mean dose of rescue analgesia (pentazocin, 30 mg in one vial) in group A was 33 ± 26 mg which was significantly less as compared to group B where it was 62 ± 28 mg. There was statistically insignificant difference between all cardiorespiratory factories at all-time intervals except for heart rate and mean blood pressure at 0 h in group A as compared to group B.

CONCLUSIONS

Intraperitoneal bupivacaine is a simple, safe, inexpensive method for control of postoperative pain in patients undergoing laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. Use of the correct dose and concentration of the drug are essential for effective pain control.

Back-to-back comparison of mini-open vs. laparoscopic technique for living kidney donation

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy is the standard of care at high-volume renal transplant centres, with benefits over the open approach well-documented in the literature. Herein, we present a retrospective analysis of our single-institution donor nephrectomy series comparing the mini-open donor nephrectomy (mini-ODN) to the laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) with regards to operative, donor, and recipient outcomes.

METHODS

From 2007-2011, there were 89 cases of mini-ODN, at which point our centre transitioned to LDN; 94 cases were performed from 2011-2014. In total, 366 patients were reviewed, including donor and recipient pairs. Donor and recipient demographics, intraoperative data, postoperative donor recovery, recipient graft outcomes, and financial cost were assessed comparing the surgical approaches.

RESULTS

We demonstrate a reduced estimated blood loss (347.83 vs. 90.3 cc), lower intraoperative complication rate (4 vs. 11) and shorter length of hospital stay (2.4 vs. 3.3 days) for patients in the LDN group. Operative time was significantly longer for the LDN group (108.4 vs. 165.9 minutes), although this did not translate to a longer warm ischemia time (mean 2.0 minutes for each group). The rate of delayed graft function and recipient 12-month creatinine were comparable for ODN and LND. Overall cost of LDN was $684 higher for an uncomplicated admission.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a longer surgical time and higher upfront cost, our study supports that LDN yields several advantages over the mini-ODN, with a lower estimated blood loss, fewer intraoperative complications, and shorter length of hospital stay, all while maintaining excellent renal allograft outcomes.