From Open to Laparoscopic Living-donor Nephrectomy: Changing the Paradigm in a High-volume Transplant Center

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the incidence of incisional hernia in urological surgery

PURPOSE

To evaluate the incidence of incisional hernia in patients undergoing direct access to the abdominal cavity in urological surgery.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review in Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Central from 1980 to the present according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. Eighty-four studies were selected for inclusion in this analysis, and meta-analysis and meta-regression were performed.

RESULTS

The total incidence in the 84 studies was 4.8% (95% CI 3.7% - 6.2%) I2 93.84%. Depending on the type of incision, it was higher in the open medial approach: 7.1% (95% CI 4.3%-11.8%) I2 92.45% and lower in laparoscopic surgery: 1.9% (95% CI 1%-3.4%) I2 71, 85% According to access, it was lower in retroperitoneal: 0.9% (95% CI 0.2%-4.8%) I2 76.96% and off-midline: 4.7% (95% CI 3.5%-6.4%) I2 91.59%. Regarding the location of the hernia, parastomal hernias were more frequent: 15.1% (95% CI 9.6% - 23%) I2 77.39%. Meta-regression shows a significant effect in reducing the proportion of hernias in open lateral, laparoscopic and hand-assisted compared to medial open access.

CONCLUSION

The present review finds the access through the midline and stomas as the ones with the highest incidence of incisional hernia. The use of the lateral approach or minimally invasive techniques is preferable. More prospective studies are warranted to obtain the real incidence of incisional hernias and evaluate the role of better techniques to close the abdomen.

Changing Education Paradigms: Training Transplant Fellows for High Stake Procedures

OBJECTIVE

Living kidney donation is a unique operation, as healthy patients are placed at risks inherent with major surgery without physical benefit. The ethical implications associated with any morbidity make it a high-stakes procedure. Fellowships are faced with the dilemma of optimizing fellow training in this demanding procedure while providing safe outcomes to donors. The Laparoscopic Living Donor Nephrectomy (LDN) Workshop is a resource that can provide intense instruction to help bridge the training deficit. Our aim was to examine the course's effectiveness in improving fellows' skill and confidence related to implementing LDN into future practice.

METHODS

From 2017 to 2018, 36 abdominal transplant surgery fellows participated in a 2-day workshop consisting of live surgery observation, cadaver lab, and didactic sessions. Surveys were completed precourse, postcourse, and at 3-month postcourse follow-up.

RESULTS

Preworkshop, 61% of participants reported less than 50% confidence in independent performance of LDN. Following workshop completion, 95% reported improved confidence. At 3-month follow-up, there was a 30% (p < 0.05) increase in median confidence level. Immediately following the course, 67% reported improved ability to analyze kidneys prior to donation, 74% changed the way donor candidates were evaluated, and 67% reported enhanced ability to risk stratify donors. Eighty-five percent felt it strengthened operative techniques with 70% implementing new diagnostic treatments and surgical strategies. Seventy percent of participants felt it improved their communication with colleagues and 67% had enhanced communication with patients. These trends were maintained at 3-month follow-up.

CONCLUSION

These results indicated that the LDN Workshop improves confidence and increases fellows' skillset in a high-stakes procedure. The LDN Workshop is a useful adjunct to fellowship training to optimize successful, efficient, and safe performance of a demanding procedure in a uniquely healthy donor population.

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

OBJECTIVES

Despite the present use ofthe laparoscopic technique for living-donor kidney nephrectomy, a search for alternative techniques continues.The aim of this study was to compare finger-assisted open donor nephrectomy versus laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study included retrospective data of 95 consecutive donors in a transplant center who were under going donor nephrectomy RESULTS: Donor demographics and clinical characteristics were generally similar between treatment groups. There were fewer female donors in the finger-assisted open donor nephrectomy treatment group (70.5% vs 29.5%; P = .003), but median body mass index was similar between groups (28 vs 26 kg/m²; P = .032). Patients who received laparoscopic donor nephrectomy had longer operative duration (3.5 vs 1.2 h; P < .001), longer combined length of incision (6 vs 5 cm; P = .001), andshorter median hospital length of stay (3 vs 4 days; P < .001). A left nephrectomy was preferred in both groups. Minor postoperative complications occurred less often in the finger-assisted open donor nephrectomy group (14.7% vs 31.6%; P = .0094). Donors who received laparoscopic nephrectomy had lower glomerular filtration rate at 1 year after donation (60 vs 89 mL/min/1.73 m²; P < .001) than donors who received finger-assisted nephrectomy. However, recipients of donors of both procedures had similar glomerular filtration rate at 1 year after transplant (65 vs 69 mL/min/1.73 m²; P = .5).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrated that finger-assisted open donor nephrectomy is a successful and safe alternative versus laparoscopic donor nephrectomy, providing favorable results for patients in terms of complications and outcomes.

Mini-incision Living Donor Nephrectomy and Trans-peritoneal Laparoscopic Nephrectomy: Will There Be a Place for New Evidence?

OBJECTIVES

To compare mini-incision donor nephrectomy (MDN) with laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) performed by the same surgical team, regarding short- and long-term outcomes.

METHODS

Three hundred and five patients, who underwent donor nephrectomy in our institution, through an MDN (n = 141) between January 1998-November 2011 and LDN (n = 164) since June 2010-December 2017, were compared.

RESULTS

The mean operative time for MDN (120 ± 29 minutes) was not significantly different when compared to LDN (113 ± 34 minutes), but when comparing the first 50 LDN and the 50 most recent, we found a reduction in the duration of the procedure. Laparoscopic donors had a shorter warm ischemia time (229 seconds vs 310 seconds, P = .01), particularly the 50 most recent, hospital stay (4.3 days vs 5.9 days, P < .001), and postoperative complications (P = .03). The incidence of graft acute tubular necrosis (ATN) was superior in the MDN (89% vs 25%, P < .001), although there was no significant difference regarding first-year serum creatinine (SCr) and glomerular filtration rate (GFR) (SCr 1.38 mg/dL vs SCr 1.33 mg/dL and GFR 63.7 mL/min vs 63.1 mL/min) comparing the 2 groups. Long-term graft survival did not significantly differ between groups. There was also no relationship between postoperative ATN events and long-term graft function.

CONCLUSIONS

With the growing experience of the high-volume centers and with specialized teams, LDN could be considered the most suitable technique for living donor nephrectomy with better results in short-term results (warm ischemia time, hospital stay, and postoperative complications), without difference in long-term outcomes.

Simultaneous laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy and nephrectomy in the same living donor: The first case report

With the presence of organ shortage, living donors remain important sources of grafts, especially for pediatric recipients. Laparoscopic nephrectomy has become the gold standard for living donors. Additionally, laparoscopic partial liver procurement in living donors has proven its safety and feasibility in the latest studies. We have combined both approaches to perform a simultaneous liver-kidney transplantation in a pediatric patient from the same living donor. Our experience of laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy and laparoscopic nephrectomy in living donors was the basis for adapting to this procedure. A 29-year-old mother was an ABO-incompatible (ABOi) donor for the left lateral section (LLS) of the liver and left kidney for her 2-year-old son. The postoperative period was uneventful. Two sessions of plasmapheresis and rituximab induction were necessary to prepare for ABOi transplantation. The donor and recipient were discharged on postoperative days 5 and 28, respectively. Simultaneous laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy and nephrectomy in the same living donor is feasible for transplantation from the parent to the child with advanced laparoscopic expertise.

Open Management of the Renal Vein Is a Safe Modification in Right-Sided Laparoscopic Living Donor Nephrectomy to Maximize Graft Vein Length

BACKGROUND

The primary objective in living donor kidney transplantation is donor safety. In laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy, most centers prefer the left kidney for donation given the shorter renal vein, higher rate of thromboses, and more difficult surgical procedure for right kidney retrieval. The goal of this study was to demonstrate the feasibility of a hybrid technique using a Satinsky clamp in right-sided living donor nephrectomy to obtain maximal renal vein and to compare the outcome with standard left-sided laparoscopic donor nephrectomies.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Between 2005 and 2013, 77 patients underwent a left (group L) and 54 a right (group R) living donor nephrectomy. In group R, after laparoscopic dissection and mobilization of the right kidney, two 12-mm trocar incisions in the right upper quadrant were connected in a 5-7 cm subcostal incision. The caval vein was partially clamped under direct vision prior to dissection of the renal vein. The venotomy was then closed with a running 4-0 Prolene suture. The two groups were compared with regard to surgical complications, graft function, and graft survival.

RESULTS

Using this technique, no significant difference with regard to complications or graft function was observed. Serum creatinine at discharge in donor group L was 1.23 (±0.43) mg/dL and in donor group R 1.21 (±0.37) mg/dL (P = .71). Graft survival at one year was 100% in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Open management of the renal vein is a safe alternative in laparoscopic right-sided donor nephrectomy and ensures maximal length of the vein.

Comparison of Both Sides for Retroperitoneal Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy: Experience From a Single Center in China

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) has gradually become the main approach to obtain live donor kidneys. However, the shorter right renal vein limits its wider application. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of left- and right-side retroperitoneal LDN.

METHODS

We reviewed the perioperative data of 527 consecutive donors receiving retroperitoneal pure LDN with a new method at our center between April 2009 and April 2014. The patients were divided into group A (the first 100 patients) and group B (the remaining 427 patients). A total of 423 cases of left donor surgery and 104 cases of right donor surgery were compared. The comparison of the laterality of LDN was also performed between group A and group B.

RESULTS

This is currently the largest case series of LDN in our country. Although right-side LDN patients had longer operation time and a slightly higher incidence of intraoperative complications compared with left-side LDN patients, the operation time was shorter in both the groups compared with previous reports. In group B, patients undergoing right-side LDN had longer operation time and more frequent complications. Once the learning curve of 100 cases was completed, the incidence of complications and operation time were greatly reduced in both sides for LDN. There was no significant difference in the serum creatinine levels in recipients at 6 months of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a slightly higher incidence of complications and longer operation time, right-side LDN can achieve equally safe and effective transplantation outcomes. This expands the source of potential donor kidneys.

Defining the Tipping Point in Surgical Performance for Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy Among Transplant Surgery Fellows: A Risk-Adjusted Cumulative Summation Learning Curve Analysis

The United Network for Organ Sharing recommends that fellowship-trained surgeons participate in 15 laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) procedures to be considered proficient. The American Society of Transplant Surgeons (ASTS) mandates 12 LDNs during an abdominal transplant surgery fellowship. We performed a retrospective intraoperative case analysis to create a risk-adjusted cumulative summation (RACUSUM) model to assess the learning curve of novice transplant surgery fellows (TSFs). Between January 2000 and December 2014, 30 novice TSFs participated in the organ procurement rotation of our ASTS-approved abdominal transplant surgery fellowship. Measures of surgical performance included intraoperative time, estimated blood loss, and incidence of intraoperative complications. The performance of senior TSFs was used to benchmark novice TSF performance. Scores were tabulated in a learning curve model, adjusting for case complexity and prior TSF case volume. Rates of adverse surgical events were significantly higher for novice TSFs than for senior TSFs. In univariable analysis, multiple renal arteries, high BMI, prior abdominal surgery, male donor, and nephrolithiasis were correlated with higher incidence of adverse surgical events. Based on the RACUSUM model, high intraoperative time is mitigated after 28 procedures, incidence of intraoperative complications tends to diminish after 24 procedures, and improvement in estimated blood loss did not remain consistent. TSFs exhibit a tipping point in LDN performance by 24-28 cases and proficiency by 35-38 cases.

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy using the Da Vinci Si system: how to improve surgeon autonomy. Our step-by-step technique

Herein, we describe several steps to improve surgeon autonomy during a Left Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Nephrectomy (RALRN), using the Da Vinci Si system. Our kidney cancer program is based on 2 community hospitals. We use the Da Vinci Si system. Access is obtained with the following trocars: Two 8 mm robotic, one 8 mm robotic, bariatric length (arm 3), 15 mm for the assistant and 12 mm for the camera. We use curved monopolar scissors in robotic arm 1, Bipolar Maryland in arm 2, Prograsp Forceps in arm 3, and we alternate throughout the surgery with EndoWrist clip appliers and the vessel sealer. Here, we described three steps and the use of 3 robotic instruments to improve surgeon autonomy. Step 1: the lower pole of the kidney was dissected and this was retracted upwards and laterally. This maneuver was performed using the 3rd robotic arm with the Prograsp Forceps. Step 2: the monopolar scissors was replaced (robotic arm 1) with the robotic EndoWrist clip applier, 10 mm Hem-o-Lok. The renal artery and vein were controlled and transected by the main surgeon. Step 3: the superior, posterolateral dissection and all bleeders were carefully coagulated by the surgeon with the EndoWrist one vessel sealer. We have now performed 15 RALRN following these steps. Our results were: blood loss 300 cc, console time 140 min, operating room time 200 min, anesthesia time 180 min, hospital stay 2.5 days, 1 incisional hernia, pathology: (13) RCC clear cell, (1) chromophobe and (1) papillary type 1. Tumor Stage: (5) T1b, (8) T2a, (2) T2b. We provide a concise, step-by-step technique for radical nephrectomy (RN) using the Da Vinci Si robotic system that may provide more autonomy to the surgeon, while maintaining surgical outcome equivalent to standard laparoscopic RN.