Right retroperitoneal versus left transperitoneal laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy

Strategies to Perform Pure Retroperitoneoscopic Donor Nephrectomy: A Single-Center Cohort Study

Background: Considering the increase in a number of vascular complications, right laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is less preferred due to achieving not only shorter renal vein but also longer renal artery. However, recent studies have indicated that the side of the surgery would not affect the outcomes. Aim: The aim of this study is to evaluate the outcomes and strategies to increase the safety of pure retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy (RDN). Methods: We analyzed the prospectively collected medical records of 158 kidney donors who underwent RDN from January 2010 to August 2018. The patients were divided into two groups based on their side of surgery. Right- and left-sided RDNs were compared in terms of demographics, intraoperative, and postoperative data, including the development of incisional hernia (IH). The outcomes of the recipients were also evaluated. Results: Right RDN was performed in 40 (25.3%) and left RDN was performed in 118 (74.7%) donors. Operation time (P = .593), warm ischemia time (P = .271), blood loss (P = .787), and length of hospital stay (P = .908) were statistically similar in right and left RDN groups. Intraoperative and postoperative complications were statistically showed no difference between right and left RDNs. No IH was observed in any group. One-year and five-year patient survival and graft survival rates were 100% versus 97% (P = .299) and 100% versus 95% (P = .126) on both sides, respectively. Conclusion: Right RDN is an effective and safe method as on the left side. RDN has an additional advantage in the absence of IH. Experience with other retroperitoneoscopic urological interventions may have had a positive effect on the outcomes of pure RDN.

Right Living Donor Nephrectomies: Retroperitoneoscopic vs Laparoscopic Transperitoneal Approach

Retroperitoneoscopic right living donor nephrectomy (RLDN) provides direct access to the renal hilum without the need to mobilize the colon. However, factors such as lack of anatomic landmarks to guide orientation, smaller working space, and steep learning curve provided a debate against this approach. In this retrospective study, we reviewed our single-center experience of retroperitoneoscopic RLDN.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between January 2015 and January 2017, 10 patients underwent retroperitoneoscopic RLDN by a single surgeon at the National University Hospital, Singapore. Baseline demographics, intraoperative parameters, and both donor and recipient outcomes were retrieved from the database.

RESULTS

Mean (SD) age was 52.7 (13.8) years, mean (SD) body mass index was 25.2 (2.9) kg/m², mean (SD) operating time was 196.8 (38.0) minutes, mean (SD) warm ischemic time was 5.1 (2.1) minutes, and mean (SD) blood loss was 43 (25.0) mL. Mean (SD) renal vein length was 10 (2.5) mm, and mean (SD) renal artery length was 6 (1.8 mm). One patient had to be converted to laparoscopic transperitoneal nephrectomy. No donors developed complications. Mean (SD) hospital stay was 3.5 (1.1) days. All transplanted right kidneys had immediate graft function with no complications. Mean (SD) serum creatinine (at 1 year) was 103.6 (20.3) μmol/L. There is no graft loss among the recipient after 1 year.

CONCLUSIONS

Right donor nephrectomy can be performed safely using retroperitoneoscopic approach. Retroperitoneoscopy offers advantages, especially in a patient who previously had transabdominal surgery or high body mass index. However, transperitoneal approach may be preferable in anomalous situations because it provides instinctive orientation from anatomic landmarks and a greater working space.

Transition from laparoscopic to retroperitoneoscopic approach for live donor nephrectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy has become the standard of care due to multiple benefits. Currently, there are various techniques employed with two different approaches: transperitoneal (TLDN) or retroperitoneoscopic (RLDN) approach. There is a lack of data to determine which technique is superior, although the RLDN offers an anatomical advantage by avoidance of manipulation of the intraperitoneal organs. The aims of this study were to explore the merits of RLDN to TLDN and assess the learning curve of transition from TLDN to RLDN.

METHODS

From January 2010 to February 2017, 106 live donor nephrectomies were performed: 56 by TLDN and 50 by RLDN. Data on patient demographics, perioperative parameters, analgesic consumption, pain scores, and kidney graft function were collected and analysed. Data were compared with a Student's t test or Mann-Whitney test. A CUSUM analysis was performed to investigate the learning curve.

RESULTS

All live donor nephrectomies were successful with no conversion to open surgery. There was no blood transfusion, readmission, or mortality. No postoperative complications were graded over Clavien II. Kidney function was comparable in both groups. The follow-up period ranged from 3 to 78 months.

CONCLUSION

Retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy is a safe approach with comparable results to TLDN. RLDN has an anatomical advantage as it avoids manipulating the intraperitoneal organs and retains a virgin abdomen and hence translates to a lower perioperative complication risk.

Perioperative Events and Complications in Minimally Invasive Live Donor Nephrectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive live donor nephrectomy has become a fully implemented and accepted procedure. Donors have to be well educated about all risks and details during the informed consent process. For this to be successful, more information regarding short-term outcome is necessary.

METHODS

A literature search was performed; all studies discussing short-term complications after minimally invasive live donor nephrectomy were included. Outcomes evaluated were intraoperative and postoperative complications, conversions, operative and warm ischemia times, blood loss, length of hospital stay, pain score, convalescence, quality of life, and costs.

RESULTS

One hundred ninety articles were included in the systematic review, 41 in the meta-analysis. Conversion rate was 1.1%. Intraoperative complication rate was 2.3%, mainly bleeding (1.5%). Postoperative complications occurred in 7.3% of donors, including infectious complications (2.6%), of which mainly wound infection (1.6%) and bleeding (1.0%). Reported mortality rate was 0.01%. All minimally invasive techniques were comparable with regard to complication or conversion rate.

CONCLUSIONS

The used techniques for minimally invasive live donor nephrectomy are safe and associated with low complication rates and minimal risk of mortality. These data may be helpful to develop a standardized, donor-tailored informed consent procedure for live donor nephrectomy.

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy, complications and management: a single center experience

OBJECTIVE

To present our experience with laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN), our complications and management modalities. Material and methods: Fifty-one transperitoneal LDNs performed in our clinic between the years 2011, and 2015, were evaluated retrospectively. Demographic characteristics of the patients, operative and postoperative data and complications were evaluated.

RESULTS

Nineteen female and 32 male patients with ages ranging from 24 to 65 years underwent left- (n=44), and right-sided (n=7) LDNs. Six patients had two, and one patient three renal arteries. Mean operation time was 115±11 (min-max: 90-150) minutes, and mean warm ischemia time 111±9 (min-max: 90-140 sec) seconds. Mean hospital stay was found to be 2.5±0.5 days. No patient needed to switch to open surgery. In one patient, lumbar vein was ruptured, and hemostatic control was achieved laparoscopically. Postoperative paralytic ileus developed in two patients. Three patients had postoperative atelectasis, and a febrile (38.1°C) episode.

CONCLUSION

LDN is a minimally invasive method with advantages of short hospital stay, less analgesic requirement, and better cosmetic results. However it should be performed by surgeons with advanced laparoscopic experience.

Comparison of the effectiveness of low pressure pneumoperitoneum with profound muscle relaxation during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy to optimize the quality of recovery during the early post-operative phase: study protocol for a randomized controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Since technique modifications of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy, e.g. retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy or hand-assistance, have not shown significant benefit regarding safety or improvement of recovery, further research should focus on improving postoperative recovery. The use of low pressure pneumoperitoneum has shown to significantly reduce postoperative pain after laparoscopy. To facilitate the use of low pressure pneumoperitoneum, deep neuromuscular block will be used.

METHODS/DESIGN

This trial is a phase IV, single center, double-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial in which 64 patients will be randomized to: low pressure pneumoperitoneum (6 mmHg) and deep neuromuscular block or normal pressure pneumoperitoneum (12 mmHg) and deep neuromuscular block. Deep neuromuscular block is defined as post tetanic count < 5. Primary outcome measurement will be Quality of Recovery-40 questionnaire (overall score) on day 1.

DISCUSSION

This study is the first randomized study to assess the combination of low pressure pneumoperitoneum in combination with deep neuromuscular block from a patients' perspective. The study findings may also be applicable for other laparoscopic procedures.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was registered at trials.gov (NCT02146417) in July 2014.

A comparison of technique modifications in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of different technique modifications in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analyses.

DATA SOURCES

Searches of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Central from January 1st 1997 until April 1st 2014.

STUDY DESIGN

All cohort studies and randomized clinical trials comparing fully laparoscopic donor nephrectomy with modifications of the standard technique including hand-assisted, retroperitoneoscopic and single port techniques, were included.

DATA-EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS

The primary outcome measure was the number of complications. Secondary outcome measures included: conversion to open surgery, first warm ischemia time, estimated blood loss, graft function, operation time and length of hospital stay. Each technique modification was compared with standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Data was pooled with a random effects meta-analysis using odds ratios, weighted mean differences and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals. To assess heterogeneity, the I2 statistic was used. First, randomized clinical trials and cohort studies were analyzed separately, when data was comparable, pooled analysis were performed.

RESULTS

31 studies comparing laparoscopic donor nephrectomy with other technique modifications were identified, including 5 randomized clinical trials and 26 cohort studies. Since data of randomized clinical trials and cohort studies were comparable, these data were pooled. There were significantly less complications in the retroperitoneoscopic group as compared to transperitoneal group (OR 0.52, 95%CI 0.33-0.83, I2 = 0%). Hand-assisted techniques showed shorter first warm ischemia and operation times.

CONCLUSIONS

Hand-assistance reduces the operation and first warm ischemia times and may improve safety for surgeons with less experience in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. The retroperitoneoscopic approach was significantly associated with less complications. However, given the, in general, poor to intermediate quality and considerable heterogeneity in the included studies, further high-quality studies are required.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The review protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database before the start of the review process (CRD number 42013006565).

Impact of right-sided nephrectomy on long-term outcomes in retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy at single center

Objective. To assess the long-term graft survival of right-sided retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy (RPLDN), we compared the outcomes of right- and left-sided RPLDN. Methods. Five hundred and thirty-three patients underwent live donor renal transplantation with allografts procured by RPLDN from July 2001 to August 2010 at our institute. Of these, 24 (4.5%) cases were selected for right-sided RPLDN (R-RPLDN) according to our criteria for donor kidney selection. Study variables included peri- and postoperative clinical data. Results. No significant differences were found in the recipients' postoperative graft function and incidence of slow graft function. Despite significant increased warm ischemic time (WIT: mean 5.9 min versus 4.7 min, P < 0.001) in R-RPLDN compared to that in L-RPLDN, there was no significant difference between the two groups regarding long-term patient and graft survival. The complication rate in R-RPLDN was not significantly different compared to that in L-RPLDN (17% versus 6.5%, P = 0.132). No renal vein thrombosis was experienced in either groups. Conclusions. Although our study was retrospective and there was only a small number of R-RPLDN patients, R-RPLDN could be an option for laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy because of similar results, with the sole exception of WIT, in L-RPLDN, and its excellent long-term graft outcomes.

Comparing Surgical Complications of Donors and Recipients in Retroperitoneoscopic versus Mini-Incision Donor Nephrectomy: A Single-Center Experience

Anterior vertical mini-incision donor nephrectomy (MIDN) has been used as the standard retrieval procedure in our center. Though the MIDN approach was tolerated very well with low complication rates, there were especially cosmetic reasons, to consider a change of procedure. Hence we switched to a total retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy (RPDN) in 2011. We compared the outcome and surgical complications of donors and recipients of the first 30 RPDNs performed with 30 consecutive MIDN procedures. In both techniques, right and left nephrectomies were carried out. After a very short learning curve, the mean RPDN operation times were shorter compared to the MIDN (109 versus 171 min, P<0.01) and donors were discharged earlier. No major complications occurred in the RPDN group and complications were less frequent compared to MIDN (17% versus 40%). The renal function in the recipients was equivalent in both groups at the time of discharge and after one year. We conclude that RPDN is easy to learn for a surgical team experienced in open retroperitoneal donor nephrectomy. The change of the retrieval technique is safe for the donor and the recipient regarding surgical complications and recipients’ renal function. Donors benefit from RPDN due to earlier hospital discharge and faster recovery.

Technical modifications of hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic living donor nephrectomy: a single-center experience

OBJECTIVES

To report a single-center experience and technical modifications of hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic living donor nephrectomy (HARLDN).

METHODS

A total of 78 living donors underwent HARLDN from June 2004 to November 2009. We used a three-port, finger-dissecting, routine retroperitoneal approach. After almost complete mobilization of the kidney, the renal pedicle was dissected to expose the renal vessels. The ureter was dissected and divided at the level of the iliac vessels. An approximately 7-cm Gibson incision was made as the hand-assisted port. The surgeon's hand was introduced through this incision directly. With hand assistance, the renal artery was clipped using two Hem-o-lok clips at the proximal end, and then sheared by scissors without any clips on the kidney side. The renal vein was controlled similarly. Then the kidney was rapidly removed through the incision by hand.

RESULTS

HARLDN was effectively and safely completed in 78 (100%) donors. No conversion to an open operation was necessary. The mean operative time and mean warm ischemic time were 121 minutes (range, 90-134) and 146 seconds (range, 112-247) respectively. The mean blood loss was 61 mL (range, 32-85). Clavien 1 complications including subcutaneous emphysema in 5.1% (4/78). The mean visual analog scales on postoperative days 1 to 5 were: 2.5, 1.2, 0.8, 0.5, and 0.1, respectively. The mean time to resume oral diet was 1.5 days. The mean hospital stay was 4.5 days (range, 4-5). The mean level of postoperative serum creatinines of the donors at 7 days and 1 month thereafter were 1.06 mg/dL (range, 0.74-1.43) and 1.15 mg/dL (range, 0.79-1.61) mg/dL, respectively. The mean level of postoperative serum creatinines of the recipients at 7 days and 1 month were 1.40 mg/dL (range 0.81-1.67) and 1.52 mg/dL (range, 0.76-1.83), respectively. The mean incision length was 6.5 cm (range, 6.0-7.2).

CONCLUSIONS

The modified HARLDN combines the purely laparoscopic technique with quicker, safer organ retrieval by the open access.

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: The Middle East experience

OBJECTIVES

To summarize the experience of the Middle East in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN), to discuss the associated advantages and salient problems, to examine the learning curve encountered compared with that of the pioneering centres in the West, and the contribution of the regional centres to the worldwide experience.

METHODS

We searched Medline and PubMed for all centres performing LDN in the Middle East. Questionnaires were e-mailed to the regional transplantation centres, and programme directors, and leading urological and transplant surgeons were contacted by telephone.

RESULTS

LDN in the Middle East was first introduced in 2000; this approach has been pioneered and practised at seven transplant centres within five countries in the region, and was restricted to only three Arab countries, i.e. Lebanon, Egypt and Kuwait. Data collection yielded a total of 888 procedures over one decade, representing only 2% of the total of ≈50,000 transplants during the same period. Despite variability of accurate reporting the overall outcomes were similar to those of open DN. The spectrum of complications was comparable to that from major centres in the USA during their learning curve.

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of LDN in the Middle East has been gratifying. The relative hesitancy in introducing LDN in the rest of the Arab Middle East is multifaceted. The advantages conferred to the donor underscore the need for further expansion of this approach for kidney retrieval.

Technical modifications of retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy: Chinese experience

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this article is to report a single-center experience and technical modifications of retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy (RPLDN).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred twenty-one 3-port RPLDNs were performed at our institution. No prisoners or organs from prisoners were used to collect the data for this study. The tributaries of renal artery and vein were transected using a harmonic scalpel after both ends of the tributary were coagulated intermittently until the color turned light yellow. Transection was made using shifting coagulation. A longitudinal 6-8-cm skin incision was extended inferiorly from the primary trocar with muscles intact. The renal artery was clipped using two Hem-o-Lok clips at the proximal end, and then sheared by scissors without any clips on the kidney side. The renal vein was controlled similarly. The graft was retrieved by insertion of a hand through the longitudinal lumbar incision.

RESULTS

The mean operative time and warm ischemia time were 126.1 and 3.6 minutes, respectively. No blood transfusion or open conversion was required. None of the donors encountered a major complication, but 7 suffered minor complications. Preoperative and postoperative mean serum creatinine levels of the donors were 1.00 and 1.29 mg/dL, respectively. The mean serum creatinine levels of the recipients postoperatively at day 1 and month 1 were 5.48 and 1.60 mg/dL, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The modified approach of RPLDN may be a useful alternative with flexible control of the renal vessels and tributaries and easy retrieval of the graft.

[Laparoscopic nephrectomy in a living donor]

Kidney transplantation is the therapeutic option of choice for patients with end-stage renal disease. With the advent of safer harvesting techniques and immunosuppression, both donor and recipient outcomes have markedly improved in recent years. Kidney donation from Living donors remains the single most important factor responsible for improving patient and graft survival. The laparoscopic donor nephrectomy has revolutionized renal transplantation, allowing expansion of the donor pool by diminishing surgical morbidity while maintaining equivalent recipient outcome. This technique is now becoming the gold-standard harvesting procedure in transplant centres worldwide, despite its technical challenge and ongoing procedural maturation, especially early in the learning curve. Previous contraindications to laparoscopic donor nephrectomy are no longer absolute. In the following analysis, the procedural aspects of the laparoscopic donor nephrectomy are detailed including pre-operative assessment, operative technique and a review of the current literature delineating aspects of both donor and recipient morbidity and mortality compared with open harvesting techniques.

Reluctance Over Right-Sided Retroperitoneoscopic Living Donor Nephrectomy: Justified or Not?

We retrospectively compared perioperative donor outcomes and early complication rate of right- and left-sided retroperitoneoscopic living donor nephrectomy (RLDN).

METHODS

From November 2001 to April 2006, we performed 118 RLDN. Including 24% (n = 28) right-sided RLDN and 76% (n = 90) left-sided RLDN. Perioperative results and the rate of adverse events were compared for both sides.

RESULTS

We observed no significant difference in operation time, blood loss, warm ischemia time, or postoperative creatinine levels between right- and left-sided kidney donors. RLDN was successfully performed in 116 of 118 donors. One donor in each group had to be converted to an open approach. We observed one graft loss due to renal artery kinking in one recipient after left-sided RLDN. Two right donations needed a saphenous venous patch due to a short right renal vein (<2 cm). Overall, intraoperative and postoperative complications were comparable between the two donor groups.

CONCLUSION

Right-sided RLDN provides comparable perioperative and postoperative results to those of left-sided RLDN. Our results demonstrated that groups with significant experience in RLDN can perform right living donor nephrectomy safely and efficiently with minimal invasiveness.

Retroperitoneoscopic Hand-Assisted Live-Donor Nephrectomy According to the Basic Principle of Transplantation in Donor Kidney Selection

PURPOSE

We assessed the feasibility of retroperitoneoscopic hand-assisted live-donor nephrectomy according to the basic principle of transplantation in kidney selection, namely, leaving the better-functioning kidney in the donor.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Thirty consecutive live-donor nephrectomies, including 10 right-sided and 20 left-sided procedures, were evaluated. The surgery was started endoscopically using three ports, followed by hand assistance for dissecting the renal pedicles through the extended inner-port incision. A vascular Endostapler and polymer clips were used to transect the renal vessels.

RESULTS

Two right-sided cases required open conversion because of multiple renal vessels and uncontrollable bleeding. The median operative time, warm ischemia time (WIT), blood loss, and renal vein length were 244 minutes (upper and lower quartile 215 and 274 minutes), 186 seconds (134, 239 seconds), 175 mL (45, 305 mL), and 22 mm (19, 26 mm), respectively. The operative time and WIT were longer, and the renal vein was shorter, in the right-sided than in the left-sided procedures (P < 0.05), but no difference was found in the other perioperative data for the two sides. No delayed graft function was observed, and the kidney function 1 month postoperatively was acceptable in all donors and all recipients.

CONCLUSION

Our technical devices, such as the site and timing of hand assistance and control of the renal vessels, seem feasible. Although we could not draw a conclusion about the safety of the right-sided procedure, this alternative procedure should be applicable for laparoscopic donor nephrectomy uninfluenced by the side of the donor kidney provided the surgical team has sufficient expertise.

Current concepts in transplant surgery: laparoscopic living donor of the kidney

INTRODUCTION

Living donor kidney transplantation has emerged as an excellent alternative to cadaveric donation since, more than 50 years ago, the first live donor nephrectomy was successfully performed.

OBJECTIVE

The basic idea of introducing laparoscopy in live donor nephrectomy was to obtain a potential reduction in incision-related morbidity with reduced pain and faster reconvalescence while providing at least the same level of operative security. This paper is focusing on technical aspects, outcome, results, and possible current concerns and advantages of laparoscopic living-related donor nephrectomy.

CONCLUSION

According to our results and the results available in the literature, laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy is safe when performed with sufficient experience. Postoperative pain is less and recovery is significantly faster.

Association of Bowel Rest and Ketorolac Analgesia with Short Hospital Stay After Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy

OBJECTIVES

Because of the shortage of cadaveric kidneys for allograft transplantation, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is becoming a more feasible option. Several large published series have reported hospital stays as long as 3.3 days. We report the positive effect of preoperative bowel rest and the use of ketorolac for postoperative analgesia on reducing the hospital stay after laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.

METHODS

From 2000 to 2005, 300 patients underwent laparoscopic donor nephrectomy at our institution by a single surgeon (P.G.S.). All patients underwent a bowel preparation regimen involving a clear liquid diet beginning 2 days before surgery. Furthermore, two bottles of magnesium citrate were taken orally the day before surgery, and all patients fasted after midnight before surgery. Patients self-administered one Fleets enema the evening before surgery. Postoperatively, the patients received ketorolac 30 mg intravenously every 6 hours for a maximum of 48 hours, with additional narcotics if necessary for analgesia.

RESULTS

The mean operative time was 180 +/- 55 minutes. Typically, patients were admitted the day of surgery and discharged the next postoperative day. The mean donor hospital stay was 1.1 days (range 1 to 3) with no readmissions. More than 97% of our patients were able to tolerate a clear liquid diet, pass flatus, and ambulate the day after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

With implementation of a strict bowel preparation regimen and the use of ketorolac for postoperative analgesia, the donor length of stay was markedly improved from previously published results. We attribute the shorter hospital stay to the quicker return of bowel function and to less postoperative discomfort.

Outcome of Renal Transplantation with Multiple Versus Single Renal Arteries After Laparoscopic Live Donor Nephrectomy: A Comparative Study

OBJECTIVES

To compare donor morbidity and recipient outcomes in patients with a single artery versus multiple arteries undergoing laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.

METHODS

A total of 303 consecutive laparoscopic donor nephrectomies were performed. Data from the group with multiple arteries (n = 27) (group I) were compared with those from the groups with single renal artery (n = 245) (group IIA) and early branching renal artery resulting in two artery recipient anastomoses (n = 31) (group IIB), in terms of donor and recipient outcomes.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy was technically successful in all 303 patients without need for open conversion. The graft retrieval time was higher in group I and group IIB compared with group IIA (3.9 +/- 1.4 and 3.9 +/- 0.8 versus 3.5 +/- 1.0 minutes). Similarly, warm ischemia time was significantly higher in groups I and IIB versus group IIA (7.2 +/- 1.9 and 6.7 +/- 1.9 versus 5.6 +/- 1.8 minutes). Creatinine level at day 1 was higher in group I compared with group IIA (2.4 +/- 1.4 versus 1.9 +/- 0.7 mg/dL). However, there was no significant difference in creatinine levels at 1 month and 1 year among the three groups. Overall graft survival in groups I, IIA, and IIB was 92%, 94.4%, and 94%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in the presence of multiple renal arteries is feasible and safe. Additionally, long-term graft survival and graft function at 1 month and 1 year are not adversely impacted by the presence of multiple renal arteries in grafts procured laparoscopically.

A two-center experience with the exclusive use of laparoscopic transperitoneal nephrectomy for benign renal disease in children

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate a two-center experience with pediatric transperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy, specifically focusing on the outcome parameters of operative time, complication, analgesic requirement, and postoperative stay.

METHODS

This ambispective study was conducted over a 4-year period between May 2001 and May 2005 in two tertiary pediatric surgical centers. Data were prospectively recorded from an in-house expanded medical audit system (EMAS) and a Microsoft Excel database. Information on patient demographics, operative time, complications, analgesic requirement, and length of hospital stay were retrieved and analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 30 consecutive patients with a mean age of 4.43 years (range, 3 months to 15 years) underwent laparoscopic nephrectomy. All the patients underwent unilateral nephrectomy/nephroureterectomy for multidysplastic kidney (n = 12), reflux nephropathy (n = 13), pelvicoureteric junction obstruction (n = 4), or cystic disease of indeterminate cause (n = 1). The mean operative time was 93 +/- 30 min. The principal hemostatic devices used were the Harmonic Scalpel (20 cases), liga clips (5 cases), and hook diathermy and endoshears exclusively (4 cases). There were no conversions, but the intraoperative complications of bleeding (n = 2), difficult location (n = 1), difficult extraction (n = 1), and requirement for a liver retractor (n = 2) were encountered. An additional five patients had problems in the immediate postoperative period, two of whom went on to have long term difficulties with recurrent urinary tract infections resulting from a residual ureteric stump, which required surgery. Nearly one-third of the patients required morphine for analgesia in the immediate postoperative period, with the figure falling to 20% by day 1. The median postoperative hospital stay was 1 day (range, 0-16 days). At this writing, all the patients remain under surveillance with a mean follow-up period of 2.88 years, and no patients have experienced complications secondary to intraabdominal adhesions.

CONCLUSION

Transperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy is technically feasible in most cases of benign renal disease. The intraoperative complications are minimal, and recovery for most is robust. Two-thirds of the patients are discharged within 24 h. In this study, narcotic analgesics were prescribed in about a one-third of all the cases for a limited period. Further problems may be seen when refluxing ureters are incompletely excised. However, the transperitoneal approach does not mitigate against complete excision because the exposure to the pelvis is adequate. At the midterm follow-up assessment, adhesive obstruction was not encountered, confirming this approach as a tenable alternative to other laparoscopic approaches for nephrectomy.

Right laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: The Washington Hospital Center experience

OBJECTIVES

To review 167 consecutive laparoscopic living donor nephrectomies performed at the Washington Hospital Center to determine whether the side of extraction, right versus left, affects the operative outcomes.

METHODS

From January 2003 to June 2005, 167 consecutive patients (127 left and 40 right) underwent laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy. The right-sided and left-sided procedures were compared in the following categories: operative time, warm ischemia time, length of stay, and complications.

RESULTS

The mean operative time for a right donor nephrectomy was 220 minutes versus 228 minutes for a left. The mean estimated blood loss was 115 mL for right donor nephrectomy versus 106 mL for the left. The corresponding mean warm ischemia times were 5.32 minutes and 4.91 minutes. The median length of stay was 3 days in both groups. Five minor and three major complications occurred, including 2 patients with recognized bowel injuries and 1 patient who required reoperation for a bladder injury.

CONCLUSIONS

Historically, laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy has been performed solely on the left side because of the increased length of the left renal vein. However, in our experience, the operative parameters and postoperative results were equivalent in the right and left laparoscopic donor nephrectomy groups. Therefore, we recommend removal of the more appropriate kidney, regardless of side.

Evaluation of Living Renal Donors: Accuracy of Three-dimensional 16-Section CT

PURPOSE

To retrospectively assess the sensitivity and specificity of three-dimensional (3D) 16-section computed tomography (CT) in the evaluation of vessels, pelvicalyceal system, and ureters in living renal donors, with surgical findings as the reference standard.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a HIPAA-compliant study. Institutional review board approval was obtained for the review of subjects' medical records and data analysis, with waiver of informed consent. Forty-six renal donors (18 men, 28 women; mean age, 42 years) were examined with 16-section CT. Two blinded reviewers independently studied renal vascular and urographic anatomy of each donor CT scans by fist using 3D images alone, then transverse images alone, and finally transverse and 3D data set. Image quality, degree of diagnostic confidence, and time used for review were recorded. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated.

RESULTS

For 3D images, transverse images, and transverse in conjunction with 3D data sets, the respective sensitivity and specificity of CT in evaluation of accessory arteries by reviewer 1 were 100% and 100%, 89% and 100%, and 100% and 100%, and those by reviewer 2 were 89% and 97%, 89% and 100%, and 89% and 100%; the respective sensitivity and specificity in evaluation of venous anomalies by reviewer 1 were 100% and 98%, 100% and 98%, and 100% and 98%, and those by reviewer 2 were 100% and 98%, 100% and 95%, and 100% and 98%. For focused comprehensive assessment of renal donors with 3D scans alone, a reviewer on average (average of reviewers 1 and 2) used 2.4 minutes per scan, demonstrated full confidence in 93%, and rated the quality as excellent in 76%.

CONCLUSION

For focused assessment of renal vascular and urographic anatomy, review of 3D data set alone provides high sensitivity and specificity with regard to findings seen at surgery.

Hand-assisted right laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy has acquired an important role in the era of minimally invasive surgery. Laparoscopic harvesting of the right kidney is technically more challenging than that of the left kidney because of the short right renal vein and the need to retract the liver away from the right kidney. The aim of this article is to report our experience with right laparoscopic live donor nephrectomies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of 28 patients who underwent right laparoscopic donor nephrectomies at our service. Operative data and postoperative outcomes were collected, including surgical time, estimated blood loss, warm ischemia time, length of hospital stay, conversion to laparotomy and complications.

RESULTS

The procedure was performed successfully in all 28 patients. The mean operative time was 83.8 minutes (range 45 to 180 minutes), with an estimated blood loss of 111.4 mL (range 40 to 350 mL) and warm ischemia time of 3 minutes (range 1.5 to 8 minutes). No donor needed conversion to open surgery and all kidneys showed immediate function after implantation. The average time to initial fluid intake was 12 hours (range 8 to 24 hours). Two cases of postoperative ileus and a case of hematoma on the hand-port site were observed. The mean postoperative hospital stay was 3 days (range 1 to 7 days).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data confirm the safety and feasibility of right laparoscopic donor nephrectomy and we believe that the right kidney should not be avoided for laparoscopic donor nephrectomy when indicated.

Laparoscopic Right Donor Nephrectomy: Is There a Right Way?

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

There is a continuing reluctance among transplant surgeons to procure a right-kidney allograft laparoscopically. We describe our experience with right laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (RLDN) by three techniques.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed all seven RLDNs performed at our center from January 2002 to June 2005. The technique used in a particular case depended on the anatomy of the renal vasculature and included transperitoneal (N = 1), retroperitoneoscopic (N = 4), and retroperitoneoscopy-assisted approaches without the use of hand port or other assist devices (N = 2). No stapling or manual-assist devices were used in the last four cases for division of the renal vessels.

RESULTS

The mean blood loss, operating time, hospital stay, and serum creatinine concentration on day 7 were 94.3 +/- 46.9 mL (SD), 212.8 +/- 66 minutes, 4.9 +/- 1.9 days, and 1.1 +/- 0.2 mg/dL, respectively. The overall warm ischemia time was 217 +/- 116 seconds. Our preferred technique currently is to go for a total retroperitoneoscopic approach to the right kidney initially. If the renal vein appears short, we make a small subcostal incision to retrieve the kidney openly at this stage (retroperitoneoscopy-assisted approach) with minimal risks to the donor and recipient.

CONCLUSIONS

Retroperitoneoscopic RLDN performed without hand-assist or stapling devices is safe and cost-effective and yields kidneys with excellent function. Rather than have a fixed approach to RLDN, we suggest a choice depending on the length of the renal vessels observed during surgery.

Outcome of right hand–assisted retroperitoneoscopic living donor nephrectomy

OBJECTIVES

To compare the results of right and left hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic living donor nephrectomy (HARDN) and assess the usefulness and feasibility of right HARDN.

METHODS

A total of 68 HARDNs performed from July 2001 to February 2005 in Akita University Medical Center were entered into this study. Of these, 12 cases were right-sided HARDN. The reasons for selecting right HARDN were wandering right kidney in 4, multiple left renal arteries in 3, lower glomerular function presenting in the right kidney in 2 patients, and left renal stone, right renal cyst, and right renal aneurysm in 1 patient each. We compared the perioperative and postoperative results of the 12 right-sided HARDNs with those of the 56 left HARDNs.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found between the two groups in the demographic data (ie, age, sex, number of renal arteries), except for the body mass index. None of the right HARDNs resulted in major complications or open conversion, but two left HARDNs required conversion to open surgery. No difference was found between the two groups regarding estimated blood loss, warm ischemia time, or time to oral intake, although the right HARDN group had a longer mean operative time. No significant differences were found in the recipient's postoperative graft function or in the frequency of delayed graft function.

CONCLUSIONS

Right HARDN provided almost similar perioperative and postoperative outcomes compared with those of left HARDN. Our results indicate that right HARDN is a choice for living donor nephrectomy because of its technical feasibility, safety, and minimal invasiveness, which are comparable to those of left HARDN.

MDCT angiography of living laparoscopic renal donors

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy has become the accepted method of harvesting the kidney at many institutions because of multiple advantages over open donor nephrectomy. Spiral computed tomographic (CT) angiography provides accurate information of renal vascular anatomy and has become an accepted method of preoperative evaluation of potential laparoscopic renal donors. More recently, multidetector CT (MDCT) provides more detailed datasets compared with single-detector spiral CT and has been used for preoperative evaluation of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy to provide accurate anatomic information. MDCT (especially 16- and 64-slice MDCT) angiography has advantages over single-detector helical CT due to rapid scan time that allows coverage of a large volume of interest with higher spatial and temporal resolutions. In this article, we review the current status of MDCT angiography in the evaluation of laparoscopic renal donors and potential advantages of using this technology.

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

Of the various options for patients with end stage renal disease, kidney transplantation is the treatment of choice for a suitable patient. The kidney for transplantation is retrieved from either a cadaver or a live donor. Living donor nephrectomy has been developed as a method to address the shortfall in cadaveric kidneys available for transplantation. Laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy (LLDN), by reducing postoperative pain, shortening convalescence, and improving the cosmetic outcome of the donor nephrectomy, has shown the potential to increase the number of living kidney donations further by removing some of the disincentives inherent to donation itself. The technique of LLDN has undergone evolution at different transplant centers and many modifications have been done to improve donor safety and recipient outcome. Virtually all donors eligible for an open surgical procedure may also undergo the laparoscopic operation. Various earlier contraindications to LDN, such as right donor kidney, multiple vessels, anomalous vasculature and obesity have been overcome with increasing experience. Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy can be done transperitoneally or retroperitoneally on either side. The approach is most commonly transperitoneal, which allows adequate working space and easy dissection. A review of literature and our experience with regards to standard approach and the modifications is presented including a cost saving model for the developing countries. An assessment has been made, of the impact of LDN on the outcome of donor and the recipient.

Laparoscopy for living donor nephrectomy - particularities of the currently applied techniques

Today, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) in many centers features the standard approach for kidney retrieval in living donors. More than 60% of the centers in the USA currently perform LDN and numbers are rising in Europe as well. Today's variety of laparoscopic approaches reflects the evolution in the field of LDN. Multiple modifications have been made for the laparoscopic approach, with consequences for intraoperative handling of the kidney, operating and ischemic times and with impact on donor, organ, and recipient. We reviewed the literature from 1995 to 2004 and critically evaluated the different technical modifications, their specific advantages and disadvantages and their impact for the operation. The article aims to help the surgeon choose the technique he feels most safe with for performing laparoscopic kidney retrieval safely and with good results for donor and recipient.

Laparosopic Hand-Assisted Living Donor Nephrectomy: The Niguarda Experience

Perioperative donor morbidity, a barrier to living organ donation, may be mitigated by the laparoscopic approach. From September 2002 to September 2004, 15 living donors, of ages ranging from 36 to 59 years, underwent laparoscopic nephrectomy. We used a hand-assisted device to increase the safety of the procedure. The average operating time was 200 minutes. The average blood loss was about 100 mL. The patients resumed oral intake and started walking within 1 day. The average postoperative hospital stay was 6 days. Although laparoscopic operating times were longer than those for traditional surgery, we showed benefits to the laparoscopic donor to be less postoperative pain, better cosmesis, shorter recovery time, and faster return to normal activities. We therefore consider laparoscopic nephrectomy a good alternative to traditional surgery for selected patients. Despite a lack of strong evidence, such as large prospective randomized studies, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is likely to become the gold standard for donor nephrectomy in the near future.

Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy has equivalent early and late renal function outcomes compared with open donor nephrectomy

OBJECTIVES

To assess the patterns of early functional recovery and long-term function in laparoscopic and open procured live donor nephrectomy (LDN) kidneys, highlighting the radionuclide scan as an additional tool for assessment, because of concerns regarding renal functional recovery after laparoscopic LDN.

METHODS

We reviewed the donor and recipient records of 101 laparoscopic and 35 open LDNs performed between August 1997 and September 2001. Data were collected on demographic, immunologic, and intraoperative variables and ureteral/vascular complications. Delayed renal function recovery in recipients was evaluated by serum creatinine greater than 2.5 mg/dL on postoperative day 5, dialysis in first postoperative week, and two renographic criteria--the time to peak activity and the time to one-half peak activity on postoperative day 5. Long-term outcomes were evaluated by serum creatinine at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months and 2 and 3 years, creatinine clearance at 1 year, and patient and allograft survival.

RESULTS

Donor and recipient age, sex, body mass index, and number of HLA mismatches did not differ between the two groups. The mean operating room time and blood loss were comparable. No differences were found in the early functional parameters (renography, creatinine at postoperative day 1 and 5, or dialysis in week 1) or long-term outcome (patient and graft survival, creatinine, and rejection at 1 year and patient and graft survival at 1, 2, and 3 years).

CONCLUSIONS

Early recovery of graft function, longer term renal function, and 3-year patient and allograft survival are similar for live donor kidneys obtained by either a laparoscopic or an open surgical technique.