Surgical Approaches and Outcomes in Living Donor Nephrectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Evaluation of acute postoperative pain management after living donor nephrectomy during the transition from open access to laparoscopic and minimally invasive robotic surgical approach

Background

Living donor nephrectomies (LDN) at our institution transitioned from open access to laparoscopic and, more recently, to a minimally invasive robotic surgical approach between 2019 and 2022. Concurrently, postoperative analgesia transitioned from regional anesthesia to intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) and eventually to simple analgesics with additional rescue analgesic agents, as needed, in accordance with individual physicians' preferences. This retrospective study was designed to evaluate the impact of these changes on surgical practice on the analgesic requirements and effectiveness of postoperative pain management.

Methods

Electronic records of all LDN cases operated between January 2019 and March 2022 were accessed, and a comparative analysis of patient demographics, surgical approach, duration of surgery, postoperative pain scores, and the analgesics administered within the first 48 h was performed.

Results

LDN (n = 527) was performed via laparoscopic (n = 432, 82%), robotic (n = 87, 17%), and open (n = 8, 2%) approaches. All patients were administered regular paracetamol 1 g 6 hourly. IV PCA was used in 85% of cases, predominantly in the laparoscopic (99%) and open (75%) groups (LG and OG, respectively); in contrast, the robotic group (RG) was mostly treated without PCA (81.7%). A variety of analgesic techniques were employed for the remaining patients, including epidural (25% of OG) and rectus sheath/transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block (2% of LG). Additional rescue analgesics were administered to 98% of the patients; 92% of LG needed 1-3 analgesic agents, whereas all of the OG and 37% of RG needed 1-2 rescue analgesics. No correlation was found between patient demographics and surgery duration on pain scores or analgesic requirements.

Conclusions

Robotic surgery was associated with the lowest postoperative pain scores and analgesic demand; laparoscopic resection was the most painful of all.

Right and left living donor nephrectomy and operative approach: A systematic review and meta-analysis of donor and recipient outcomes

INTRODUCTION

The left kidney is preferable in living donor nephrectomy (LDN). We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of right versus left LDN in both donor and recipients. A subgroup analysis of outcomes based on operative approach was also performed.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed as per PRISMA guidelines. Outcomes of interest were extracted from included studies and analysed.

RESULTS

There were 31 studies included with 79,912 transplants. Left LDN was performed in 84.1 % of cases and right LDN in 15.9 %. Right LDN was associated with reduced EBL (P = 0.010), intra-operative complications (P = 0.030) and operative time (P = 0.006), but higher rates of conversion to open surgery (1.4 % vs 0.9 %). However, right living donor renal transplantation (LDRT) had higher rates of delayed graft function (5.4 % vs 4.2 %, P < 0.0001) and graft loss (2.6 % vs 1.1 %, P < 0.0001). Graft survival was reduced in right LDRT at 3 years (92.0 % vs 94.2 %, P = 0.001) but comparable to left LDRT at 1- and 5-years. Otherwise, donor and recipient peri-operative outcomes and serum creatinine levels were comparable in both groups. Hand-assisted LDN was associated with shorter warm ischaemia time (P < 0.0001) but longer length of stay (LOS) than laparoscopic LDN and robotic-assisted LDN (P < 0.0001). RA-LDN was associated with less EBL and shorter LOS (both P < 0.0001) while patients who underwent L-LDN had a lower mean serum creatinine (SCr) level on discharge (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Right LDRT has higher rates of delayed graft function and graft loss compared to left LDRT. Minimally-invasive surgical approaches potentially offer improved outcomes but further large-scale randomised controlled trials studies are required to confirm this finding.

Living Donor Nephrectomy: Analysis of Trends and Outcomes From a Contemporary National Dataset

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the temporal trends and perioperative and long-term outcomes of living donor kidney nephrectomy in the United States.

METHODS

The PearlDiverTM Mariner database (Pearl-Diver Technologies, Colorado Springs, CO, USA) was used for our retrospective analysis. The data were identified using ICD-9/10 codes, as well as CPT codes. Continuous and categorical variables were compared using 2-sided tests. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify predictors of 5-year ESRD.

RESULTS

A total of 6333 patients were identified (median age 54, IQR 46-62 years) from 2010 to April 2022. A greater percentage of living donor nephrectomies were performed by general surgeons (56.1%), followed by transplant surgeons (16.5%) and urologists (14.7%). Unfortunately, physician specialty was not reported for the remaining patients. The MIS exceeded open surgery in each specialty group and inpatient setting. The significant predictors of ESRD were male, preoperative DM and hypertension, tobacco smoking, perioperative AKI and younger age at the time of kidney donation.

CONCLUSION

MIS represents the main surgical approach for organ procurement. A meticulous selection process for donors and subsequent close monitoring are necessary to minimize the putative consequences of donor nephrectomy.

The learning curve for modified hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic living donor nephrectomy

BACKGROUND

We aimed to introduce our modified hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic living donor nephrectomy (HARPLDN) technique and define the learning curve.

METHODS

One hundred thirty-eight kidney donors who underwent modified HARPLDN by the same surgeon between May 2015 and March 2022 were included. A cumulative sum (CUSUM) learning curve analysis was performed with the total operation time as the study outcome.

RESULTS

In total, the mean operative time was 138.2 ± 32.1 min. The median warm ischemic time (WIT) and estimated blood loss were 90 s and 50 ml, respectively. The learning curve for the total operative time was best modeled as a second-order polynomial with the following equation: CUSUMOT (min) = (-0.09 case number2) + (12.88 case number) - 67.77 (R2 = 0.7875; p<0.05). The CUSUM learning curve included the following three unique phases: phase 1 (the initial 41 cases), representing the initial learning curve; phase 2 (the middle 43 cases), representing expert competence; and phase 3 (the final 54 cases), representing mastery. The overall 6-month graft survival rate was 99.3%, with 94.9% immediate onset of graft function without delayed graft function and 0.7% ureteral complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Our modified method is safe and effective for living donor nephrectomy and has the advantages of a shorter operating time and optimized WIT. The surgeon can become familiar with the modified HARPLDN after 41 cases and effectively perform the next 97 cases.

Robotic assisted living donor nephrectomy - the first in the Czech Republic

INTRODUCTION

A kidney transplant is the best method for treating terminal kidney failure. Long-term results of kidney transplants from living donors are significantly better than transplants from dead donors. Living kidney donors are healthy people who undergo a major operation in order to improve the health of another person. Therefore, major emphasis is on safety, low level of invasiveness and a desirable cosmetic effect of the donor nephrectomy. Since 2012, the Department of Urology at the University Hospital in Olomouc has performed 12 kidney harvestings from living donors. The kidney harvesting was conducted using various techniques.

CASE REPORT

The first robotic assisted kidney harvesting in the Czech Republic was performed in June 2022. The donor was a 57-year-old man who donated his kidney to his 32-year-old daughter. The left kidney was evaluated as suitable for kidney harvesting. The operation took 174 min. The kidney's warm ischemia was 145 s. Based on the Clavien Dindo classification, no 2nd degree or high post-operative complications were recorded. The donor's pre-operative glomerular filtration was 1.63 mL/s. Six months post-operation, it went down to 1.19 mL/s. This represents a 27% decrease. The kidney recipient did not require early dialysis. Six months post-operation, the recipient's glomerular filtration was 2.03 mL/s.

CONCLUSION

In the hands of experienced professionals and transplantation centres, robotic assisted donor nephrectomy is a feasible and safe option for this operation. It not only provides all the advantages of a laparoscopic operation but it also adds other technical improvements and minimizes intraoperative stress on the surgeon. Currently, the global trend is moving towards increasing the ratio of robotic assisted donor nephrectomies.

The psychology, legality, ethics and medical aspects of organ donation by minors

Any individual who has not attained the chronological age of legal majority as per national law is termed a minor. The concept of living donation (LD) has always been a subject of ethical debate and further compounding the controversy is the question of LD by minors. The decision for a minor to donate poses a special challenge as it involves a close family unit of parent-child relationship. Such an emotionally loaded situation wherein questions of attachment, perceived duties, moral obligation are likely to cloud a truly informed consent on the part of the minor to donation, who may find themselves in a vulnerable position. Furthermore, a minor's cognitive ability to comprehend the gravity of LD and when required defy parental coercion need to be elucidates before a minor is accepted for LD. Experts have set out stringent conditions which need to be met prior to the exceptional circumstance that a minor is considered for organ donation. Such donations should require parental permission, child's assent and the involvement of a paediatric-trained donor advocacy team. This article debates the question of minors acting as live donors from ethical, medical, psychosocial and legal viewpoints with an aim to present internationally defined circumstances when a minor may morally participate as a LD, thereby laying the foundation for future deliberations in this regard using traditional metrics to juxtapose divergent courses of action.

Prediction models for postoperative renal function after living donor nephrectomy: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Living-donor nephrectomy (LDN) is the most valuable source of organs for kidney transplantation worldwide. The current preoperative evaluation of a potential living donor candidate does not take into account formal estimation of postoperative renal function decline after surgery using validated prediction models. The aim of this study was to summarize the available models to predict the mid- to long-term renal function following LDN, aiming to support both clinicians and patients during the decision-making process.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic review of the English-language literature was conducted following the principles highlighted by the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines and following the PRISMA 2020 recommendations. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO on December 10, 2022 (registration ID: CRD42022380198). In the qualitative analysis we selected the models including only preoperative variables.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

After screening and eligibility assessment, six models from six studies met the inclusion criteria. All of them relied on retrospective patient cohorts. According to PROBAST, all studies were evaluated as high risk of bias. The models included different combinations of variables (ranging between two to four), including donor-/kidney-related factors, and preoperative laboratory tests. Donor age was the variable more often included in the models (83%), followed by history of hypertension (17%), Body Mass Index (33%), renal volume adjusted by body weight (33%) and body surface area (33%). There was significant heterogeneity in the model building strategy, the main outcome measures and the model's performance metrics. Three models were externally validated.

CONCLUSIONS

Few models using preoperative variables have been developed and externally validated to predict renal function after LDN. As such, the evidence is premature to recommend their use in routine clinical practice. Future research should be focused on the development and validation of user-friendly, robust prediction models, relying on granular large multicenter datasets, to support clinicians and patients during the decision-making process.

Comparison of Optical Trocar Access Versus Veress Needle Insertion Technique for Peritoneal Entry in Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy

BACKGROUND

Nearly half of all complications in laparoscopic surgery occur at the intraperitoneal access. We compared direct optical entry (DOE) with Veress needle entry (VNE) in terms of abdominal entry time and entry-associated complications in patients who underwent laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN).

METHODS

Between June 2010 and July 2023, data from 813 patients who underwent LDN were analyzed. Age, male-to-female ratio, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, body mass index, operation side, previous abdominal surgery, abdominal entry technique, abdominal entry time, entry-associated complications, conversion to different abdominal entry techniques, and conversion to open surgery were evaluated.

RESULTS

DOE and VNE were performed on 433 and 281 patients, respectively. Age (48.89 ± 12.11 vs 47.59 ± 11.34 years), male-to-female ratio (44.8% vs 40.9% males and 55.2% vs 59.1% females), ASA score (2 vs 2 median ASA score), body mass index (26.72 ± 6.11 vs 27.07 ± 5.83 kg/m2), and operation side (63.0% vs 61.3% left nephrectomy) were not statistically significant differences between the DOE and VNE groups (P > .05). However, abdominal entry time was significantly reduced in the DOE group compared with the VNE group (26.8 ± 20.8 vs 49.5 ± 34.1 seconds, P = .007, respectively). Entry-associated complications were observed in 8 (1.12%) patients. No major (grades 3-5) complications were observed. There were no statistically significant differences in overall (0.6% vs 1.7%, P = .291), grade 1, and grade 2 complication rates between the DOE and VNE groups (0.4% vs 1.4%, P = .366; 0.2% vs 0.3%, P = .714, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

DOE and VNE are not foolproof. DOE is a safe, feasible, and faster technique in patients who underwent LDN.

Trends in kidney transplantation and living donor nephrectomy in Germany: a total population analysis from 2006 to 2021

PURPOSE

To analyze recent trends of surgical access routes, length of hospital stay (LOS), and mortality in kidney transplantation (KT) and living donor nephrectomy (LDN) in Germany.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We studied the nationwide German hospital billing database and the German hospital quality reports from 2006 to 2021.

RESULTS

There were a total of 35.898 KTs. In total, 9044 (25%) were living donor transplantations, while 26.854 (75%) were transplantations after donation after brain death (DBD). The share of open LDN decreased from 82% in 2006 to 22% in 2020 (- 4%/year; p < 0.001). The share of laparoscopic LDN increased from 18% in 2006 to 70% in 2020 (+ 3%/year; p < 0.001). The share of robotic LDN increased from 0% in 2006 to 8% in 2020 (+ 0.6%/year; p < 0.001). Robotic-assisted KT increased from 5 cases in 2016 to 13 procedures in 2019 (p = 0.2). LOS was shorter after living donor KT, i.e., 18 ± 12.1 days versus 21 ± 19.6 days for DBD renal transplantation (p < 0.001). Moreover, LOS differed for open versus laparoscopic versus robotic LDN (9 ± 3.1 vs. 8 ± 2.9 vs. 6 ± 2.6; p = 0.031). The overall in-hospital mortality was 0.16% (n = 5) after LDN, 0.47% (n = 42) after living donor KT and 1.8% (n = 475) after DBD KT.

CONCLUSIONS

There is an increasing trend toward minimal-invasive LDN in recent years. Overall, in-hospital mortality was low after KT. However, 5 deceased healthy donors after LKD caution that the risks of this procedure should also be taken very seriously.