Laparoscopic Versus Finger-Assisted Open Donor Nephrectomy Technique: A Possible Safe Alternative

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.

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.

Chylous Ascites After Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy: Is Early Surgical Intervention Necessary?

OBJECTIVES

Chylous ascites is a rare complication that may occur after living donor nephrectomy. The continuous loss of lymphatics, which carries a high risk of morbidity, may ensue in possible immunodeficiency and protein-calorie malnutrition. Here, we presented patients who developed chylous ascites after robotassisted living donor nephrectomy and reviewed the current literature of therapeutic strategies for chylous ascites.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We reviewed the medical records of 424 laparoscopic living donor nephrectomies performed at a single transplant center; among these, we studied the records of 3 patients who developed chylous ascites following robot-assisted living donor nephrectomy.

RESULTS

Among 438 living donor nephrectomies, 359 (81.9%) were laparoscopic and 77 (18.1%) were by robotic assistance. In the 3 cases highlighted in our study, patient 1 did not respond to conservative therapy, which consisted of diet optimization, total parenteral nutrition, and octreotide (somatostatin). Patient 1 subsequently underwent robotic-assisted laparoscopy with suture ligation and clipping of leaking lymphatic vessels, allowing the chylous ascites to subside. Patient 2 similarly did not respond to conservative treatment and developed ascites. Despite initial improvement after wound interrogation and drainage, patient 2 had continued symptoms, resulting in diagnostic laparoscopy and repair of leaky channels leading to the cisterna chyli. Patient 3 developed chylous ascites 4 weeks postoperatively and received ultrasonographic-guided paracentesis by interventional radiology, with results showing an aspirate consistent with chyle. The patient's diet was optimized, allowing for initial improvement and eventual return to normal diet.

CONCLUSIONS

Our case series and literature review demonstrate the importance of early surgical intervention after failed conservative management for resolution of chylous ascites in patients after robotassisted donor laparoscopic nephrectomy.

[Living donor nephrectomy: The French guidelines from CTAFU]

OBJECTIVE

To propose surgical recommendations for living donor nephrectomy.

METHOD

Following a systematic approach, a review of the literature (Medline) was conducted by the CTAFU regarding functional and anatomical assessment of kidney donors, including which side the kidney should be harvested from. Distinct surgical techniques and approaches were evaluated. References were considered with a predefined process to propose recommendations with the corresponding levels of evidence.

RESULTS

The recommendations clarify the legal and regulatory framework for kidney donation in France. A rigorous assessment of the donor is one of the essential prerequisites for donor safety. The impact of nephrectomy on kidney function needs to be anticipated. In case of modal vascularization of both kidneys without a relative difference in function or urologic abnormality, removal of the left kidney is the preferred choice to favor a longer vein. Mini-invasive approaches for nephrectomy provide faster donor recovery, less donor pain and shorter hospital stay than open surgery.

CONCLUSION

These French recommendations must contribute to improving surgical management of candidates for kidney donation.

Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Living Donor Nephrectomy: The University of Florence Technique

Objective: To provide a step-by-step overview of the University of Florence technique for robotic living donor nephrectomy (LDN), focusing on its technical nuances and perioperative outcomes.

Methods: A dedicated robotic LDN program at our Institution was codified in 2012. Data from patients undergoing robotic LDN from 2012 to 2019 were prospectively collected. All robotic LDNs were performed by a highly experienced surgeon, using the da Vinci Si robotic platform in a three-arm configuration. In this report we provide a detailed overview of our surgical technique for robotic LDN. The main objective of the study was to evaluate the technical feasibility and safety of the technique, including perioperative surgical complications rate and mid-term functional outcomes.

Results: Overall, 36 patients undergoing robotic LDNs were included in the study. Of these, 28 (78%) were left LDNs. Median (IQR) donor pre-operative eGFR was 88 (75.6–90) ml/min/1.73 m². In all cases, robotic LDN was completed without need of conversion. The median (IQR) overall operative time was 230 (195–258) min, while the median console time was 133 (IQR 117-166) min. The median (IQR) warm ischemia time was 175 (140–255) s. No intraoperative adverse events or 90-d major surgical complications were recorded. At a median (IQR) follow-up of 24 months (IQR 11-46), median (IQR) eGFR patients undergoing in living donor nephrectomy was 57.4 (47.9; 63.9) ml/min/1.73 m².

Conclusions: In our experience, robotic LDN is technically feasible and safe. The use of robotic surgery for LDN may provide distinct advantages for surgeons while ensuring optimal donors' perioperative and functional outcomes.