Chronic pain after hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

BACKGROUND

Data on chronic pain after kidney donation are sparse. The aim of this study was to assess the incidence of chronic pain after hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy.

METHODS

Living kidney donors who donated between 2011 and 2017 at the University Medical Centre Groningen were included. All patients underwent hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Postdonation pain and movement disabilities were assessed using the Carolinas Comfort Scale (CCS) and a visual analogue scale (VAS). The prevalence, severity of pain and the need for analgesics were reported.

RESULTS

Some 333 living kidney donors with a mean age of 56 years were included. At a median of 19 (i.q.r. 10-33) months after donation, 82 donors (24·6 per cent) had a CCS score above 0, of which 58 (71 per cent) had a CCS score of at least 2 and 57 (70 per cent) reported movement limitations. Some 110 donors (33·0 per cent) had a VAS score of more than 0. Complaints mainly occurred during bending over (12·3 per cent) and exercising (12·4 per cent). Thirty-two donors (9·7 per cent) required analgesics during follow-up between donation and the time of measurement, and six of 82 (7 per cent) reported chronic inguinal pain. In multivariable analysis, donor age (odds ratio (OR) 0·97, 95 per cent c.i. 0·95 to 0·99; P = 0·020) and length of hospital stay (OR 1·21, 1·01 to 1·51; P = 0·041) were independently associated with chronic pain.

CONCLUSION

One-quarter of donors experienced chronic postdonation pain or discomfort, most of which was bothersome. Younger donors and those with a longer postoperative hospital stay had more symptoms.

Propofol-based anaesthesia versus sevoflurane-based anaesthesia for living donor kidney transplantation: results of the VAPOR-1 randomized controlled trial

Background

Kidney transplantation is associated with harmful processes affecting the viability of the graft. One of these processes is associated with the phenomenon of ischaemia-reperfusion injury. Anaesthetic conditioning is a widely described strategy to attenuate ischaemia-reperfusion injury. We therefore conducted the Volatile Anaesthetic Protection of Renal Transplants-1 trial, a pilot project evaluating the influence of two anaesthetic regimens, propofol- vs sevoflurane-based anaesthesia, on biochemical and clinical outcomes in living donor kidney transplantation.

Methods

Sixty couples were randomly assigned to the following three groups: PROP (donor and recipient propofol), SEVO (donor and recipient sevoflurane), and PROSE (donor propofol and recipient sevoflurane). The primary outcome was renal injury reflected by urinary biomarkers. The follow-up period was 2 yr.

Results

Three couples were excluded, leaving 57 couples for analysis. Concentrations of kidney injury molecule-1 (KIM-1), N -acetyl-β- d -glucosaminidase (NAG), and heart-type fatty acid binding protein (H-FABP) in the first urine upon reperfusion showed no differences. On day 2, KIM-1 concentrations were higher in SEVO [952.8 (interquartile range 311.8-1893.0) pg mmol -1 ] compared with PROP [301.2 (202.0-504.7) pg mmol -1 ]. This was the same for NAG: SEVO, 1.835 (1.162-2.457) IU mmol -1 vs PROP, 1.078 (0.819-1.713) IU mmol -1 . Concentrations of H-FABP showed no differences. Measured glomerular filtration rate at 3, 6, and 12 months showed no difference. After 2 yr, there was a difference in the acute rejection rate ( P =0.039). Post hoc testing revealed a difference between PROP (35%) and PROSE (5%; P =0.020). The difference between PROP and SEVO (11%) was not significant ( P =0.110).

Conclusions

The SEVO group showed higher urinary KIM-1 and NAG concentrations in living donor kidney transplantation on the second day after transplantation. This was not reflected in inferior graft outcome.

Clinical trial registration

NCT01248871.

Remote Ischemic Conditioning on Recipients of Deceased Renal Transplants Does Not Improve Early Graft Function: A Multicenter Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial

Delayed graft function is a frequent complication following deceased donor renal transplantation, and is closely related to ischemia-reperfusion injury. Experimental and clinical studies have shown protection by remote ischemic conditioning (RIC). We hypothesized that recipient RIC before kidney graft reperfusion reduces the time to graft recovery. This multicenter, blinded, randomized, controlled clinical trial included 225 adult recipients of renal transplants from deceased donors at four transplantation centers in Denmark, Sweden, and the Netherlands. Participants were randomized 1:1 to RIC or sham-RIC. RIC consisted of 4 × 5-min thigh occlusion by an inflatable tourniquet each followed by 5-min deflation, performed during surgery prior to graft reperfusion. The tourniquet remained deflated for sham-RIC. The primary endpoint was the estimated time to a 50% decrease in baseline plasma creatinine (tCr50) calculated from plasma creatinine measurements 30 days posttransplant or 30 days after the last, posttransplant dialysis. No significant differences were observed between RIC and sham-RIC-treated patients in the primary outcome median tCr50 (122 h [95% confidence interval [CI] 98-151] vs. 112 h [95% CI 91-139], p = 0.58), or the number of patients receiving dialysis in the first posttransplant week (33% vs. 35%, p = 0.71). Recipient RIC does not reduce the time to graft recovery in kidney transplantation from deceased donors. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01395719.