Introducing robot-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy after experience in retroperitoneal endoscopic approach: a matched propensity score analysis

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety and efficacy of introducing robotic-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (RALDN) to the standard retroperitoneal endoscopic donor nephrectomy (REDN).

METHODS

Data were collected prospectively from 124 consecutive living kidney donors (93 for REDN subgroup and 31 for RALDN subgroup) from February 2018 to December 2020. Donor baseline demographics, perioperative outcomes and recipient outcomes were recorded, and these parameters were compared between the two subgroups before and after propensity-score matching.

RESULTS

Mean age was 51.1 ± 9.1 years; 42.7% were males; mean body mass index was 22.7 ± 2.4; and there were 109 (88%) left kidneys. The following data of REDN and RALDN was, respectively, recorded: operative time (213 ± 43 versus 216 ± 39 min, p = 0.721), warm ischemic time (4.7 ± 1.2 versus 4.9 ± 1.4 min, p = 0.399), postoperative complications (5.4% versus 6.5%, p = 1), haemoglobin (g/L) drop (9.4 ± 7.2 versus 9.7 ± 6.6, p = 0.836), blood creatinine at 6 month (1.15 ± 0.23 versus 1.13 ± 0.24 mg/dL, p = 0.734) and at 1 year (1.09 ± 0.22 versus 1.17 ± 0.28 mg/dL, p = 0.591). In post-propensity score matched analyses, there was no significant differences between the two groups including intraoperative and postoperative complications.

CONCLUSIONS

RALDN could be safely introduced into a living donor program experienced in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. The outcomes of our study comparing these minimally invasive techniques are mostly similar in terms of intraoperative and postoperative outcomes for kidney donors.

A comparison of surgical practice and operative outcomes between retroperitoneal and transperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomies – 6 years of data from the BAUS Nephrectomy database

Objectives:

While the choice of surgical approach for laparoscopic nephrectomy is broadly split between transperitoneal and retroperitoneal options, the evidence for the impact of this decision on perioperative outcomes is built on relatively small volume data, with often inconsistent findings and conclusions. We aimed to assess the impact of operative approach on perioperative outcomes for laparoscopic radical, partial and simple nephrectomy and nephroureterectomy through analysis of the British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) Nephrectomy database.

Patients and methods:

All patients added to the BAUS Nephrectomy database with laparoscopic surgery between 2012 and 2017 inclusively were included and subdivided by operation and surgical approach. Preoperative patient and tumour characteristics, as well as intraoperative and post-operative short-term outcomes, were assessed.

Results:

Overall, 26,682 operations were documented over the review window (81.6% transperitoneal). Small increases in blood loss ( p = 0.001), transfusion rate ( p = 0.02) and operative length ( p = 0.01) were seen for transperitoneal radical nephrectomies and longer hospital stays seen for retroperitoneal procedures (radical nephrectomy p = 0.00l; partial nephrectomy p = 0.04). Retroperitoneal procedures were associated with increased rates of conversion for simple nephrectomy ( p = 0.02), nephroureterectomy ( p = 0.03) and most notably partial nephrectomy (10.5% versus 4.4%; p = 0.001). No further variation in intraoperative complications, post-operative complications, tumour margin positivity rates, unintended ITU admission, or likelihood of death was identified related to surgical approach.

Conclusion:

Observed variations in perioperative outcomes were generally modest in nature, and little ground is seen to support a change in operative technique for those committed to one approach. A caveat to this exists with open conversion for retroperitoneal partial nephrectomies and requires careful consideration of patient selection by the individual surgeon.

Level of evidence:

4

Comparison of transperitoneal and retroperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

WHAT'S KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT? AND WHAT DOES THE STUDY ADD?: Laparoscopic nephrectomy is now considered to be the reference procedure for kidney cancer. It can be performed via a transperitoneal or retroperitoneal approach. Each approach has its advantages and disadvantages. No definitive conclusions regarding objective difference between the two approaches have been reached to date. This meta-analysis indicates that in appropriately selected patients, especially patients with posteriorly located renal tumors, the retroperitoneal approach may be faster and equally safe compared with the transperitoneal approach.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficiency and safety of the retroperitoneal and transperitoneal approaches in laparoscopic radical/partial nephrectomy (RN/PN) for renal cell carcinoma.

METHODS

A systematic search of PUBMED, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library was performed to identify prospective randomized controlled trials and retrospective observational studies that compared the outcomes of the two approaches. Outcomes of interest included perioperative and postoperative variables, surgical complications and oncological variables.

RESULTS

Twelve studies assessing transperitoneal laparoscopic RN (TLRN) vs retroperitoneal laparoscopic RN (RLRN) and six studies assessing transperitoneal laparoscopic PN (TLPN) vs retroperitoneal laparoscopic PN (RLPN) were included. The RLRN approach had a shorter time to renal artery control (weighted mean difference [WMD] 68.65 min; 95% confidence interval [CI] 40.80-96.50; P < 0.001) and a lower overall complication rate (odds ratio 2.12; 95% CI 1.30-3.47; P = 0.003) than TLRN. RLPN had a shorter operating time (WMD 48.85 min; 95% CI 29.33-68.37; P < 0.001) and a shorter length of hospital stay (WMD 1.01 days; 95% CI 0.39-1.63; P = 0.001) than TLPN. There were no significant differences between the retroperitoneal and transperitoneal approaches in other outcomes of interest.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis indicates that, in appropriately selected patients, especially patients with posteriorly located renal tumours, the retroperitoneal approach may be faster and equally safe compared with the transperitoneal approach. Despite our rigorous methodology, conclusions drawn from our pooled results should be interpreted with caution because of the inherent limitations of the included studies.