Evolution of robotic nephrectomy for living donation: from hand-assisted to totally robotic technique

Robotic-Assisted Nephrectomy for Living Kidney Donation-Single Center Initial Experience (Case Series) and Review of the Literature

Background: Robotic-assisted nephrectomy for living kidney-donation (RANLD) has the potential of becoming the leading technique of harvesting kidney, if expertise is available. The aim of this work is to present our initial experience with robotic technique with additional hand-assistance. Materials and Methods: We initiated RANLD at our clinic using the DaVinci System in September 2022, since then harvesting six kidneys, four left and two right; in two cases, multiple arteries existed. The renal vessels were ligated using vascular staplers. All the operations included a hand-assist with the use of Gelport. The mean operation time was 119.2 min (SD 12 min). Results: There were no conversions or donors' post-operative complications. Time of discharge from the hospital was 4.5 days post-operatively. Total hospital length of stay was 7.8 days. All the harvested kidneys were transplanted, five of them with adequate function, three with initially delayed function, and one needed to be removed due to thrombotic complications. Post-operative was pain assessed on the VAS scale and overall pain was assessed according to the NRS scale. At the discharge day, donors' performance status was about 87.5% according to the Karnofsky scale. The donors resumed their normal life activity within 15.7 days and returned to work within 45.2 days. The serum mean creatinine level before the donation was 0.85 mg/dL (SD 0.1 mg/dL), and mean eGFR (MDRD) = 91.8 mL/min/1.73 m2 (SD 16.1 mL/min/1.73 m2). Conclusions: Further development of RANLD could lead to an increase in the number of living kidney donors, particularly in Poland where the number is currently lower than that of deceased donors. Prolonged operation time, longer warm ischemic time, and high equipment costs are significant drawbacks of RANLD.

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.

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.

Robotic assisted nephrectomy for living kidney donation (RANLD) with use of multiple locking clips or ligatures for renal vascular closure

Background

Robotic assisted nephrectomy for living donation (RANLD) is a rapid emerging surgical technique competing for supremacy with totally laparoscopic and laparoscopic hand assisted techniques. Opinions about the safety of specific techniques of vascular closure in minimally invasive living kidney donation are heterogeneous and may be different for laparoscopic and robotic assisted surgical techniques.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed perioperative and short-term outcomes of our first (n=40) RANLD performed with the da Vinci Si surgical platform. Vascular closure of renal vessels was performed by either double clipping or a combination of clips and non-transfixing suture ligatures.

Results

RANLD almost quintupled in our center for the observed time period. A total of n=21 (52.5%) left and n=19 (47.5%) right kidneys were procured. Renal vessel sealing with two locking clips was performed in 18 cases (45%) Both, clips and non-transfixing ligatures were used in 22 cases (55%). Mean donor age was 53.075±11.68 years (range, 28–70). The average total operative time was 150.75±27.30 min. Right donor nephrectomy (139±22 min) was performed significantly faster than left (160.95±27.93 min, P=0.01). Warm ischemia time was similar for both vascular sealing techniques and did not differ between left and right nephrectomies. No conversion was necessary. Clavien-Dindo Grade ≤IIIb complications occurred in (n=5) 12.5%. Grade IV and V complications did not develop. In particular no hemorrhage occurred using multiple locking clips or suture ligatures for renal vascular closure. Mortality was 0%. Thirteen kidneys (32.5%) were transplanted across the AB0 barrier.

Conclusions

RANLD is an emerging minimally invasive surgical technique which facilitates excellent perioperative and short-term outcomes also when using multiple locking clips or suture ligatures for renal vascular closure.

Robot-Assisted Harvesting of Kidneys for Transplantation and Global Complications for the Donor

INTRODUCTION

Robot-assisted kidney harvesting from living donors is feasible and safe. We report the results of a mono-centric experience relative to 98 consecutive robotic nephrectomies with emphasis on global donor complications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study. Donors underwent robot-assisted kidney harvesting. The preferred kidney was the left one even in the presence of vascular anomalies. In the first cases we used a robotic hand-assisted technique, then the totally robotic technique, and finally the modified totally robot-assisted technique. Postoperative complications were ranked according to the five-grade Clavien-Dindo classification.

RESULTS

Between November 2009 and November 2016, 98 living donors underwent nephrectomy. We experienced 14 complications. The 3 intraoperative ones (3.06%) were 1 pneumothorax and 2 acute bleedings, 1 of them requiring transfusion. The 11 postoperative complications (11.22%) were as follows: 5 wound seromas, 1 rhabdomyolisis (Clavien I), 1 paretic ileum, 1 anemia requiring transfusion, 1 hypertensive crisis (Clavien II), and 2 chylus collections drained by interventional radiologists (Clavien III). Transfusion rate was 2.1%; conversions, reoperations, and mortality were nil. No statistically significant difference was observed between the patients with complications and without in terms of gender, age, anatomical anomalies, body mass index (BMI), and learning curve. We observed a longer global operation length of time in patients with complications.

CONCLUSION

Robotic assistance results in shorter and simpler learning curves for the harvesting of kidneys from living donors. It enables an easier and more efficient management of possible intraoperative complications. The rate of postoperative complications is comparable with the rate of complications encountered in traditional laparoscopic series with high numbers of harvestings.

The use of robotic surgery in abdominal organ transplantation: A literature review

Minimally invasive surgical approaches in transplantation are gaining increasing interest, and many centers are reporting their, mainly laparoscopic, experiences. Robotic surgery (RS) has some hypothetical advantages over traditional laparoscopy and has been successfully applied, although infrequently to organ transplantation. Our goal was to review and critique the publications reporting RS use in organ transplantation. Most of the RS experience has been with living renal donor organ procurement and, to a lesser extent, with RS procedures in the transplant recipient. The available literature suggests that RS appears to be a safe surgical alternative to standard open procedures. RS in living liver donor surgery remains limited, and more experience is required before commenting on RS-related outcomes RS in pancreatic transplantation is exceedingly rare. The enhanced precision and ergonomics of RS may expand its applicability to liver living donation and pancreas transplantation at some point in the future.

Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy of Patient With Nutcracker Phenomenon

We report the case of a 30-year-old male patient undergoing a robotic-assisted laparoscopic left donor nephrectomy, where compression of the left renal vein between the superior mesenteric artery and aorta was noted on magnetic resonance angiography before the operation. The patient was diagnosed with nutcracker phenomenon and was noted to be asymptomatic at that time. This is the first reported case to date of a patient with nutcracker phenomenon who underwent a robotic-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. This article also reviews the current literature on nutcracker phenomenon and nutcracker syndrome.

Robot-assisted renal surgery: current status and future directions

This paper examines the current role of robot-assisted renal surgery as complex and partial nephrectomies, including vena cava thrombus, combined nephroureterectomies, living donor nephrectomy, autotransplantation, and difficult anatomy as in patients with obesity or adhesions. Indications for robot-assisted renal surgery are comparable to those of conventional laparoscopic approaches. A reduction in the learning curve leads to a stabilization of the procedure and further increases the number of minimally invasive procedures performed. A Medline literature search for publications on the field of robotic kidney surgery has been performed using the MeSH terms: robotic surgical procedures and kidney. Future directions include progress in robotic technology and instrumentation with further miniaturization of robotic procedures as laparoendoscopic single-site interventions and progress in image-guided robotic surgery.

Technical aspects for live-donor organ procurement for liver, kidney, pancreas, and intestine

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article reviews current strategies for living-donor organ procurement in liver, kidney, pancreas, and intestinal transplant.

RECENT FINDINGS

Here we summarize current open and laparoscopic approaches to living donation of abdominal organs.

SUMMARY

Living donation strategies expand the organ pool in the setting of a significant organ shortage.

Long-term health-related quality of life of living kidney donors: a single-center experience

PURPOSE

Over the last few years, the evaluation of the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of living kidney donors (LKD) has become of particular interest. The present study sought to evaluate the physical and mental HRQoL after kidney removal. The clinical and paraclinical course of these patients was examined, and the impact of preoperative donor evaluation, donor nephrectomy, and surgical recovery was evaluated. These data were compared with reference data of the general population.

METHODS

Between 1998 and 2010, 72 living kidney donations were performed at our institution. To assess the HRQoL, two questionnaires-the Short Form 36 (SF-36) and a special LKD questionnaire-were sent to all 72 living donors. The records of the follow-up examinations of all 72 donors were retrospectively analyzed in order to assess the clinical and paraclinical data after kidney donation.

RESULTS

Out of 72 donors, 55 (76.4 %) responded to the questionnaires. There was no change in systolic and diastolic blood pressure during the 7-year follow-up (p > 0.05). Mild proteinuria (>150 mg/l) was observed in six cases. Kidney donors had a higher HRQoL compared to the general population with mean values of the physical and mental summation scale (PCS and MCS, respectively) being 51.3 (SD = 7.6) and 50.6 (SD = 8.1). Peri- or postoperative complications were associated with lower values for physical function and physical component summary (PCS) (p < 0.05).

DISCUSSION

Living donor kidney transplantation appears to be safe for donors. The HRQoL is excellent. To ensure a positive outcome for donors, a good clinical evaluation of potential donors is essential.