Hand assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a comparison with the open approach

Comparison of modified hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic laparoscopic nephrectomy and open nephrectomy in patients with benign inflammatory non-functioning kidney diseases

Background

To assess the validity and feasibility of the modified hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic laparoscopic nephrectomy (MHARLN) in patients with benign inflammatory non-functioning kidney diseases.

Methods

We retrospectively compared the data of 223 patients who underwent an MHARLN (n=142) or an open nephrectomy (ON) (n=81) with benign inflammatory non-functioning diseases between January 2014 and October 2019 at our hospital. Patients' demographic data, perioperative outcomes, preoperative and postoperative inflammatory data, and postoperative complications were reviewed.

Results

The basic demographic data of patients were similar between the 2 groups. The mean operative times for the MHARLN and the ON were 135 and 143 minutes (P=0.181), respectively. The first time at which postoperative ambulation occurred, the visual analog pain scale (VAS) score before discharge and the postoperative complication rate were similar in both groups. However, compared to the MHARLN, the ON was associated with a more severe inflammatory response on the first day after surgery (P=0.045), higher estimated blood loss (309.8 vs. 139.6 mL; P=0.036), more peritoneal ruptures (19.8% vs. 9.2%; P=0.024), higher intraoperative transfusion (14.82% vs. 4.93%; P=0.011), higher VAS scores 24 hours after surgery (5.9 vs. 5.2; P=0.002), additional analgesic use (35.8% vs. 21.8%; P=0.024), and longer hospital stays (5.3 vs. 4.6 days; P=0.048). Before a liquid diet was commenced in the MHARLN and ON groups, the mean time was 1.2 and 1.5 days, respectively (P=0.004).

Conclusions

When performed by a skilled laparoscopic surgeon, the use of the MHARLN in patients with benign inflammatory non-functioning kidney diseases is reliable and safe. The MHARLN may help to treat challenging cases and result in less trauma successfully.

Cost-effectiveness of four living-donor nephrectomy techniques from a hospital perspective

BACKGROUND

In Europe, transplantation centres use different nephrectomy techniques: open surgery, and standard, hand-assisted and robot-assisted laparoscopies. Few studies have analysed the disparity in costs and clinical outcomes between techniques. Since donors are healthy patients expecting minimum pain and fast recovery, this study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of four nephrectomy techniques focusing on early surgical outcomes, an essential in the donation act.

METHODS

A micro-costing approach was used to estimate the cost of implementation from a hospital perspective. Estimates took into account sterilization costs for multiple-use equipment, costs for purchasing single-use equipment, staff and analgesics. The study recruited donors in 20 centres in France. Quality of life by EuroQol-5D was assessed preoperatively, and 4 and 90 days post-operatively. Two effectiveness indicators were built: quality-of-life recovery and post-operative pain days averted (PPDA). The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02830568, on 10 June 2010.

RESULTS

A total of 264 donors were included; they underwent open surgery (n = 65), and standard (n = 65), hand-assisted (n = 65) and robot-assisted laparoscopies (n = 69). Use of the nephrectomy techniques differed greatly in cost of implementation and immediate post-operative outcomes but not in clinical outcomes at 90 days. At 4 days, hand-assisted laparoscopy provided the lowest cost per quality-of-life recovery unit of effectiveness (%) and PPDA (days) (€2056/40.1%/2.3 days, respectively). Robot-assisted laparoscopy was associated with the best post-operative outcomes but with the highest cost (€3430/59.1%/2.6 days).

CONCLUSION

Hand-assisted, standard and robot-assisted laparoscopies are cost-effective techniques compared with open surgery. Hand-assisted surgery is the most cost-effective procedure. Robot-assisted surgery requires more healthcare resource use but enables the best clinical outcome.

Comparison of Surgical Techniques in Living Donor Nephrectomy: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis

Background

The aim of this study was to compare and evaluate surgical techniques used for living donor nephrectomy (LDN).

Material/Methods

We performed a meta-analysis to compare 4 surgical techniques: open LDN (OLDN), laparoscopic LDN (LLDN), hand-assisted LLDN (HALLDN), and robot-assisted LLDN (RLDN).

Results

No significant differences were found among these surgical techniques in terms of BMI, donor postoperative complications, 1-year graft survival, and DGF. Compared to the OLDN, the other 3 surgical techniques preferred to harvest the left kidney. When the right kidney was chosen as a donor, OLDN was the first-choice surgical technique. EBL was significantly lower in the HALLDN, LLDN, and RLDN groups when compared to the OLDN group. However, operative time and WIT were significantly shorter in the OLDN group. The RLDN group had an increased rate of donor intraoperative complications and a significantly lower VAS on day 1. The OLDN group required more morphine intake than the LLDN group. The length of hospital stay was significantly longer and AR was significantly higher in the OLDN group than in the LLDN and HALLDN groups.

Conclusions

There are no significant differences in donor postoperative complications, recipient DGF, and graft survival among the 4 surgical techniques. OLDN reduces WIT and operation time, but increases EBL and AR. RLDN and LLDN reduce the length of hospital stay, morphine intake, and VAS, and thus accelerate recovery. However, RLDN is associated with increased intraoperative complications.

The Evolution of Kidney Transplantation Surgery Into the Robotic Era and Its Prospects for Obese Recipients

Robotic-assisted kidney transplantation (RAKT) represents the most recent innovation in the evolution of kidney transplantation surgery. Vascular techniques enabling kidney transplantation have existed since the early 20th century and contributed to the first successful open kidney transplant procedure in 1954. Technical advances have since facilitated minimally invasive laparoscopic and robotic techniques in live-donor surgery, and subsequently for the recipient procedure. This review follows the development of surgical techniques for kidney transplantation, with a special focus on the advent of robotic-assisted transplantation because of its potential to facilitate transplantation of those deemed previously too obese to transplant by standard means. The different techniques, indications, advantages, disadvantages, and future directions of this approach will be explored in detail. Robot-assisted kidney transplantation may become the preferred means of transplanting morbidly obese recipients, although its availability to such recipients remains extremely limited and strategies targeting weight loss pretransplantation should never be abandoned in favor of a "RAKT-first" approach.

Thoracoabdominal Approach for Large Retroperitoneal Masses: Case Series and Review

The thoracoabdominal incision was first described in 1946 as an approach to concomitant abdominal, retroperitoneal, and thoracic injuries. In urology, this technique was popularized in 1949 for the resection of large renal tumours. Today, it is reserved for complex cases where optimal exposure of the renal hilum and adrenal and superior pole of the kidney is necessary. We present four consecutive cases in which this approach was taken by a single surgeon at our tertiary surgical centre. The outcomes, postoperative course, and pathology are described. We provide a comprehensive literature review and outline the indications, advantages, and disadvantages of this approach. Objectives. To present a case series outlining the efficacy and safety of the thoracoabdominal incision in complex oncologic procedures in urology. Methods. Four cases utilizing the thoracoabdominal incision, performed by a single surgeon at our tertiary care center, were reviewed. Case history, preoperative imaging, intraoperative experience, postoperative course, final pathology, and complications were examined. A thorough literature review was performed and comparison made with historical cohorts for estimated blood loss, length of stay, and complications encountered versus other common surgical approaches. The indications, advantages, and disadvantages of the thoracoabdominal approach were outlined. Results. All patients had large retroperitoneal masses of varying complexity, requiring maximal surgical exposure. Surgery was straightforward in all cases, without any significant perioperative or postoperative complications. Postoperative pain, length of hospital stay, estimated blood loss, and analgesia requirements were all similar to open and mini-flank approaches in review of historical case series cohorts. Laparoscopic approaches had lower estimated blood loss and length of stay. Conclusions. The thoracoabdominal approach is rarely utilized in urological surgery, due to the perceived morbidity in violating the thoracic cavity. These cases outline the benefit of the thoracoabdominal approach in select cases requiring maximal surgical exposure, and the generally benign postoperative course that appropriately selected patients may hope to endure. Postoperative pain, length of hospital stay, estimated blood loss, and analgesia requirements can be expected to be similar open and mini-flank approaches. As expected, laparoscopic approaches had lower estimated blood loss and length of stay.

Evaluation of the Learning Curve of Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy

BACKGROUND In this study, we analyzed the learning curve of hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN). MATERIAL AND METHODS The first 198 consecutive donors (110 cases by expert surgeon and 88 cases by newbie surgeon) operated on using HALDN were included in this study. The primary outcome measures were warm ischemic time (WIT), total operation time and estimated blood loss (EBL). The secondary outcome measures included length of hospital stay (LOS), graft outcome, and surgery-related complications. We used the cumulative sum (CUSUM) method to generate learning curves. RESULTS Except for WIT, all operative and convalescence parameters of donors and graft outcomes were similar for the 2 groups, including the total operation time (174.13 minutes vs. 171.75 minutes, P=0.140), EBL (108.27 cc vs. 116.82 cc, P=0.494), LOS (4.80 days vs. 4.92 days, P=0.144), and overall rates of intraoperative and postoperative complications (P>0.05). A significant difference was observed in WIT between the 2 groups (140.59 sec vs. 106.85 sec, P=0.027). Upon visual assessment of the CUSUM plots, a downward inflexion point for decreasing WIT was observed in 4 cases, total operation time in 12 cases, and EBL in 15 cases. CONCLUSIONS HALDN has a relatively short learning curve and similar results may be expected from newbie urologists who are trained in minimally invasive surgery fellowship.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic retroperitoneal donor nephrectomy: A single-institution experience of over 500 cases-Operative technique and clinical outcomes

OBJECTIVE

Although there are several variations of laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomies, there is no consensus as to the best technique. Our objective was to describe our technique and assess the outcomes of our approach to hand-assisted laparoscopic retroperitoneal donor nephrectomies.

METHODS

From July 2001 to October 2015, 507 consecutive hand-assisted laparoscopic retroperitoneal donor nephrectomies were performed. Their clinical information was retrospectively reviewed including warm ischemia time, skin incision to kidney ready time, estimated blood loss, adverse intraoperative events, and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

Mean incision time to kidney removal was 135 minutes (55-260), mean warm ischemia time was 125 seconds (30-390), and mean blood loss was 83 mL (20-500). Average length of stay was 3 days (1-6). There were no significant differences between left and right kidney donors based on demographics, length of hospital stay, or warm ischemia time. There were no conversions to open surgery. Complications occurred in 4.9% of patients (25/507), including 4 cases of perioperative bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

This is a single-center series describing the safety and efficacy of the hand-assisted laparoscopic retroperitoneal donor nephrectomy for both right and left sides. It does not require intraperitoneal manipulation and allows for safe extraction of either kidney with minimal warm ischemia time.

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.

Risk Factors Associated with Decreased Renal Function after Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy: A Multivariate Analysis of a Single Surgeon Experience

Background: Hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is a minimally invasive procedure for living kidney donation. The surgeon operative volume is associated with postoperative morbidity and mortality. We evaluated the risk factors associated with decreased renal function after hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy performed by a single experienced surgeon. Methods: We included living renal donors who underwent hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy by a single experienced surgeon between 2006 and 2013. Decreased renal function was defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of < 60 mL/min/1.73 m² on postoperative day 4. The donors were categorized into groups with postoperative eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m² or ≥ 60 mL/min/1.73 m². Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate the risk factors associated with decreased renal function after hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. The hospital stay duration, intensive care unit admission rate, and eGFR at postoperative year 1 were evaluated. Results: Of 643 patients, 166 (25.8%) exhibited a postoperative eGFR of < 60 mL/min/1.73 m². Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that the risk factors for decreased renal function were age [odds ratio (95% confidence interval), 1.062 (1.035-1.089), P < 0.001], male sex [odds ratio (95% confidence interval), 3.436 (2.123-5.561), P < 0.001], body mass index (BMI) [odds ratio (95% confidence interval), 1.093 (1.016-1.177), P = 0.018], and preoperative eGFR [odds ratio (95% confidence interval), 0.902 (0.881-0.924), P < 0.001]. There were no significant differences in postoperative hospital stay duration and intensive care unit admission rate between the two groups. In addition, 383 of 643 donors were analyzed at postoperative year 1. Sixty donors consisting of 14 (5.0%) from the group of 279 donors in eGFR ≥ 60 mL/min/1.73 m², and 46 (44.2%) from the group of 104 donors in eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m² had eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m² at postoperative year 1 (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Increased age, male sex, higher BMI, and decreased preoperative eGFR were risk factors for decreased renal function after hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy by a single experienced surgeon. These results provide important evidence for the safe perioperative management of living renal donors.

Minimally Invasive Surgery for Live Kidney Donors: Techniques and Challenges

Live kidney donation is assuming an increasingly prominent role in kidney transplantation programs. The traditional operative approach has been through an incision in the upper quadrant of the abdomen or in the loin, with the attendant potential postoperative complications associated with a large surgical wound. These problems may act as disincentives to prospective donors. The introduction of laparoscopic donor surgery in 1995 heralded a new era offering reduced postoperative pain and improved cosmetic result. It is hoped that these benefits may counter some disincentives and thereby increase donation rates. Three minimal-access approaches and their advantages and disadvantages are described: classical laparoscopic, hand-assisted laparoscopic, and retroperitoneoscopic surgery. Published reports indicate extensive experience with the first 2 of these approaches and less experience with the latter. All 3 approaches present technical, physiological, and anatomical challenges in the context of retrieving an organ that is fit for transplantation. For minimal-access surgery to be accepted as the procedure of choice for live kidney donors, it must be demonstrated that morbidity is not transferred from donor to recipient when these techniques are used. Some concerns about these procedures are addressed. High-level evidence in the form of randomized controlled trials is generally lacking, but experiences of surgeons and patients suggest that, with appropriate modifications, these techniques are safe for both donors and allografts and also benefit donors' recovery.

Bilateral nephrectomy for uncontrolled hypertension in hemodialysis patient: a forgotten option?

Resistant arterial hypertension in chronic hemodialysis patients is still a therapeutical challenge despite the development of modern antihypertensive drugs and dialysis procedures. Bilateral nephrectomy seems to be a forgotten option, although it has given good results. We present a case of a 39-year-old female chronic hemodialysis patient, in whom the problem of uncontrolled renal parenchymal hypertension remained despite multiple drug therapy and the ultrafiltration intensification. The problem was solved by bilateral nephrectomy. We discuss the role of bilateral nephrectomy for arterial hypertension control in chronic hemodialysis patients and the surgical and non-surgical options of nephrectomy.

Retroperitoneal hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy and partial nephrectomy

The purpose of the present paper is to describe our technique and experience with retroperitoneal hand-assisted laparoscopic (HAL) nephrectomies as an alternative to the transperitoneal approach. Eight retroperitoneal HAL nephrectomies and one partial nephrectomy were performed. Several excisional techniques were employed incorporating the Harmonic scalpel or Ligasure device. Hemostatic agents were used to cover the renal defect. Surgical bolsters were sutured to the renal capsule with pleget reinforcements to aid in hemostasis. The average operative time was 210 min and estimated blood loss 110 mL. Mean change in hematocrit was 3 units and creatinine was 1 point. No patient required a transfusion. There were no major complications, with a mean follow-up of fourteen months. On average, patients resumed oral intake in 2 days, and were discharged in 3 days. Pathological examination revealed that two lesions were benign and seven malignant. Tumor diameter averaged 3 cm. There were no positive surgical margins. In conclusion, we have demonstrated the feasibility of retroperitoneal laparoscopic hand-assisted nephrectomy and partial nephrectomy surgery for solid renal masses.

Laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy: is there a difference between using a left or a right kidney?

BACKGROUND

The goal of this study was to review the results of 279 laparoscopic living donor nephrectomies (LLDN) regarding outcomes of using the left or the right kidney.

METHODS

Among 279 patients who underwent LLDN between August 1998 and April 2009, 260 underwent a left (group L) and 19, a right (group R) nephrectomy. The two groups were compared regarding intra- and postoperative parameters, including pre- and postoperative renal function, length of surgery, conversion to an open approach, delayed graft function, and complications.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding preoperative glomerular filtration rate (L = 129.5 ± 32 mL/min versus group R = 127.3 ± 26 mL/min), length of surgery (group L = 228 ± 58 minutes versus group R = 226 ± 62 minutes group), postoperative donor creatinine (group L = 1.36 ± 0.9 mg/dL versus group R = 1.48 ± 0.8 mg/dL), conversion to open (group L = 6.6% versus group R = 5.3%), delayed graft function (group L = 7.2% versus group R = 6.3%) and recipient postoperative creatinine at 1 month (group L = 1.54 ± 1.4 mg/dL versus group R = 1.32 ± 1.1 mg/dL). There were three intraoperative donor complications in group L (bleeding in one donor required transfusion), and none in group R. Similarly, there was a great albeit not a significant difference in the number of major postoperative donor complications among group L (n = 16) versus group R (n = 2). The right kidney was chosen because of the number of vessels (n = 5), presence of cysts (n = 5), size and renal function (n = 6), presence of renal stones (n = 2), and tortuous ureter (n = 1). The reasons for conversion to open included bleeding, anatomic issues, and presence of adhesions. It should be noted that during the last 3 years there were no conversions to open, whereas the only conversion among group R was the first case.

CONCLUSIONS

Intra- and postoperative parameters were comparable between the groups. Considering the limitations of the small sample size of right LLDNs in this study, it appears that it is as safe and effective as a left procedure. The learning curve is extremely important, as can be seen by the lack of conversion in the last 3 years.

Laparoscopic versus open nephrectomy for live kidney donors

BACKGROUND

Waiting lists for kidney transplantation continue to grow and live organ donation has become more important as the number of brain stem dead cadaveric organ donors continues to fall. The major disincentive to potential kidney donors is the pain and morbidity associated with open surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To identify the benefits and harms of using laparoscopic compared to open nephrectomy techniques to recover kidneys from live organ donors.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the online databases CENTRAL (in The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 2), MEDLINE (January 1966 to January 2010) and EMBASE (January 1980 to January 2010) and handsearched textbooks and reference lists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) with open donor nephrectomy (ODN).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts for eligibility, assessed study quality, and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information where necessary.

MAIN RESULTS

Six studies were identified that randomised 596 live kidney donors to either LDN or ODN arms. All studies were assessed as having low or unclear risk of bias for selection bias, allocation bias, incomplete outcome data and selective reporting bias. Four of six studies had high risk of bias for blinding. Various different combinations of techniques were used in each study, resulting in heterogeneity in the results. The conversion rate from LDN to ODN ranged from 1% to 1.8%. LDN was generally found to be associated with reduced analgesia use, shorter hospital stay, and faster return to normal physical functioning. The extracted kidney was exposed to longer warm ischaemia periods (2 to 17 minutes) with no associated short-term consequences. ODN was associated with shorter duration of procedure. For those outcomes that could be meta-analysed there were no significant differences between LDN or ODN for perioperative complications (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.47 to 4.59), reoperations (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.09 to 3.64), early graft loss (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.48), delayed graft function (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.52 to 2.30), acute rejection (RR 1.41, 95 % CI 0.87 to 2.27), ureteric complications (RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.69 to 3.31), kidney function at one year (SMD 0.15, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.41) or graft loss at one year (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.15 to 3.85).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

LDN is associated with less pain compared with open surgery; however, there are equivalent numbers of complications and occurrences of perioperative events that require further intervention. Kidneys obtained using LDN procedures were exposed to longer warm ischaemia periods than ODN-acquired grafts, although this has not been reported as being associated with short-term consequences.

Is laparoscopic donation safe for paediatric recipients?--a study of 85 paediatric recipients comparing open and laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

INTRODUCTION

The safety of adult laparoscopic donor nephrectomy remains controversial with respect to paediatric recipients with few data existing about its efficacy. Small studies have shown no difference in graft survival when compared with open techniques, but previous data from United Network for Organ Sharing suggests a higher incidence of rejection in laparoscopically procured kidneys.

METHODS

We examined the outcome in a total of 85 consecutive paediatric renal recipients, comparing 46 recipients of laparoscopically procured kidneys (performed over a 3-year period, 2004-07) to a historical control of 39 open donor recipients. Thirty-seven laparoscopic donors were by the hand-assisted technique.

RESULTS

Mean recipient age was 9.8 (SD 5.04) years in the laparoscopic group and 10.4 (SD 4.67) years in the open group (P = 0.617). Two patients had delayed graft function in the laparoscopic group (4.3%) and one (2.5%) in the open group (P = 0.562). At 1 year follow-up, there was 100% graft survival in the laparoscopic group compared to 92% (P = 0.093) in the open group. Incidence of biopsy-proven acute rejection within 1 year of transplant was 26% (16 episodes in 12 patients) in the laparoscopic group compared to 41% (29 episodes in 16 patients) in the open group (P = 0.219). There were no deaths in the laparoscopic group but there were three deaths (7.6%) in the open group (P = 0.093).

CONCLUSIONS

Our experience of laparoscopic kidney donation for paediatric recipients suggests excellent outcome with no difference in rejection rate or graft survival compared to open donation. Laparoscopic donation is the optimal method of kidney procurement for paediatric recipients.

One hand is better than two: conversion from pure laparoscopic to the hand-assisted approach during difficult nephrectomy

INTRODUCTION

The incidence of conversion from a laparoscopic to an open approach during nephrectomy is reported at 6-8%. Conversion to an open procedure may be necessary to control haemorrhage or allow progress in dissection but the well established benefits of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) are obviously lost. Hand-assisted laparoscopy (HAL) also offers the benefits to the patient of MIS. We have used HAL to convert from the pure laparoscopic approach during difficult nephrectomies, rather than converting to traditional open surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A review of our prospective database was carried out to identify any conversions from the pure laparoscopic approach during nephrectomy or nephroureterectomy for benign or malignant disease.

RESULTS

A total of 87 laparoscopic nephrectomies (LNs) were identified over a 3-year period. There were five conversions to the HAL approach (5.7%) and no conversions to open surgery. The reason for conversion was failure to progress in all five cases. Operative times averaged 190 minutes with blood loss of 180 ml. Histology revealed xanthogranulomatous pyelonephritis in four cases and renal cell carcinoma in one case. The median postoperative stay was 4 days.

CONCLUSIONS

Conversion to HAL during LN maintains the benefits of MIS in difficult nephrectomy and should be considered prior to converting to open surgery.

Open and laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: activity and outcomes from all Australasian transplant centers

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LapDN) has been widely adopted despite a lack of randomized trials comparing recipient outcomes with open surgery. Review of registry data now seems the most realistic mechanism to compare outcomes. The Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry prospectively captures data on all renal transplants performed in Australia and New Zealand including long-term follow-up of recipients. AIM.: To compare graft outcomes among recipient of kidneys from donors undergoing nephrectomy using open and laparoscopic techniques, through analysis of the Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry after the introduction of laparoscopic donor surgery in Australia and New Zealand in 1997.

METHODS

Operative technique data for live donor transplants were collected from all surgeons performing live kidney donation procedures from May 1997 to December 2003; the outcomes of all live donor transplants were examined with follow-up to December 2007. Donor and recipient demographic variables and graft outcomes were compared between the laparoscopic and the open donor groups.

RESULTS

One thousand four hundred seventy-four live donor transplants were performed in 27 transplant centers. Of these, 315 (21%) were performed laparoscopically in 11 centers. Nineteen laparoscopic cases (6%) were converted to open. Total ischemic time was longer in the LapDN group (3.16 hr) than in the open donor group (1.61 hr, P<0.0001). The LapDN group experienced a lower incidence of rejection episodes (29.2% vs. 38.6%, P=0.002). Delayed graft function and technical failure rates were statistically equal across the groups. There were a total of 242 graft failures (175 graft losses and 67 deaths with a functioning graft, NS). Among surviving grafts, there was no consistent difference in serum creatinine at any time point. Graft and patient survivals were similar in both groups during 10-year follow-up.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that there is no difference in short- or long-term recipient outcomes for open and laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy.

[Management of renal atrophy in hypertensive patients: experience in Lille]

INTRODUCTION

In the absence of specific treatment, patients with renal vascular disease develop renal atrophy. This population frequently has hypertension refractory to medical treatment. The patients who may respond to revascularization or at the worst to a nephrectomy must be identified to optimize their therapeutic management.

METHODS

We conducted an observational retrospective study of hypertensive patients with unilateral renal atrophy (renal height < 9 cm) followed at the Lille University Hospital Center from 1998 to 2006. Hypertension, renal clearance (by scintigraphy with MAG3), and hypersecretion of renin (segmental/selective venous renin samples) were studied. We subsequently classified the patients into 3 groups. Medical treatment was optimized for all.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up period was 1.3+/-0.2 years. Eight patients were treated medically (group 1). Endovascular revascularization was used to treat the subjects for which atrophic kidney function accounted for more than 10% of their total renal function and with stenosis of the renal artery (>70%) (group 2, n=19). Those with a small nonfunctional kidney (<10% of total renal function) and hypersecretion of renin (ratio>1.5 in relation to the contralateral kidney) underwent a nephrectomy (group 3, n=8). The reduction in systolic blood pressure (SBP) was 27 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) 14 mm Hg for the overall study population (p < 0.001), without any significant aggravation of renal function. In group 1, the reduction in blood pressure was lower, with medical treatment alone; SBP fell by 13 mm Hg and DBP by 4mm Hg (p=ns) ; this group had the lowest initial blood pressure. In group 2, revascularization made it possible to improve SBP by 26 mm Hg and DBP by 14 mm Hg (p < 0.01) without significant impairment of renal function. Group 3 showed the most spectacular improvement in blood pressure, with SBP dropping by 40 mm Hg and DBP by 19 mm Hg (p=0.016). But it was also in this group that we observed an aggravation in the rate of glomerular filtration with a nonsignificant reduction of 12.8 mL/min, nonetheless superior to that expected according to the preoperative scintigraphy.

CONCLUSION

The results of this work underline the importance of multidisciplinary management of patients with small ischemic kidneys. Preselection of patients in unstable clinical situations (refractory hypertension, progressive kidney failure, flash pulmonary edema) by isotopic and endocrinal renal evaluation provides a basis for deciding on treatment. The existence of a renin ratio >1.5 can identify the patients most likely to respond to nephrectomy. The reduction of renal function following nephrectomy must be considered in the discussion about treatment. The functional threshold initially defined at 10% may be lowered to 5%, to limit this postoperative reduction.

The detrimental effect of poor early graft function after laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy on graft outcomes

We undertook this study to assess the rate of poor early graft function (EGF) after laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (lapNx) and to determine whether poor EGF is associated with diminished long-term graft survival. The study population consisted of 946 consecutive lapNx donors/recipient pairs at our center. Poor EGF was defined as receiving hemodialysis on postoperative day (POD) 1 through POD 7 (delayed graft function [DGF]) or serum creatinine >/= 3.0 mg/dL at POD 5 without need for hemodialysis (slow graft function [SGF]). The incidence of poor EGF was 16.3% (DGF 5.8%, SGF 10.5%), and it was stable in chronologic tertiles. Poor EGF was independently associated with worse death-censored graft survival (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 2.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.34-3.47, p = 0.001), worse overall graft survival (HR 1.62, 95% CI 1.10-2.37, p = 0.014), worse acute rejection-free survival (HR 2.75, 95% CI 1.92-3.94, p < 0.001) and worse 1-year renal function (p = 0.002). Even SGF independently predicted worse renal allograft survival (HR 2.54, 95% CI 1.44-4.44, p = 0.001). Risk factors for poor DGF included advanced donor age, high recipient BMI, sirolimus use and prolonged warm ischemia time. In conclusion, poor EGF following lapNx has a deleterious effect on long-term graft function and survival.

"Deviceless" hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

Hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy (HLN) in living donors is a minimally invasive surgical modality that uses classic laparoscopic techniques combined with the surgeon's hand as a support tool during renal dissection. We describe our experience with 14 donors undergoing HLN with a novel "deviceless" technique (DL-HLN). We used a midline or a paramedian incision. The first 10-mm trocar (camera) was inserted near the umbilicus and another 10-mm trocar placed under laparoscopic vision at the level of the anterior axillary line above the iliac crest. DL-HLN was performed in 14 patients (11 women and 3 men) of overall mean age of 40 years (range=33-60). Left nephrectomy was performed in all cases. Mean surgical time was 105 minutes (range=60-150). Estimated blood loss was 50 to 800 mL (mean=200 mL). Mean warm ischemia time was 3.5 minutes (range=2-11). Mean hospital stay was 4 days (range=3-6). In one case, uncontrollable hemorrhage developed due to a renal vein lesion at the level of the adrenal vein outlet, requiring conversion to open surgery. As to graft function, recipient serum creatinine on day 7 ranged from 0.9 to 2.6 mg/dL (mean=1.6). We used no device in our technique. The pneumoperitoneum was maintained by the sealing effect of the muscular fascia around the surgeon's wrist. Moreover, the kidney was removed through the hand port without an Endobag. Our modified HLN technique avoids the use of costly disposables and offers the advantages of a smaller incision.

Beneficial effects of a new fluid regime on kidney function of donor and recipient during laparoscopic v open donor nephrectomy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) has been associated with delayed graft function compared with open donor nephrectomy (ODN). We have recently shown that the adverse effect of pneumoperitoneum (PP) on hemodynamics could be prevented by a new fluid regime. The aim of this study was to test the effect of this fluid regime on the kidney function of the donor and recipient after LDN and ODN.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We prospectively collected data of 51 donors undergoing ODN and 59 donors undergoing LDN as well as data from the corresponding recipients. All donors and recipients were treated with a standardized anesthesia and fluid regime. This fluid regime consisted of preoperative overnight hydration together with a bolus of colloid administered before induction of anesthesia and before introduction of PP. Follow-up was 2 years.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics of the two groups were comparable. Hemodynamics and urine output until nephrectomy were comparable between both groups. Donor kidney function did not differ after ODN and LDN. Estimated glomerular filtration rate, graft survival, and recipient survival did not differ between open and laparoscopically procured transplants. No adverse effects of the novel fluid regime (eg, pulmonary edema or additional oxygen supply) were observed in the donors.

CONCLUSION

In contrast to our earlier findings, the kidney function of the donor and recipient is comparable between ODN and LDN after introduction of a new fluid regime.

[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.

Comparison of Graft Survival in Live Donor Nephrectomy: Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic v Open Procedures

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is associated with decreased morbidity while maintaining similar graft function in short-term follow-up compared with open surgery. We investigated hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN) in comparison with standard open donor nephrectomy (ODN) in living donors.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Two hundred patients who received a living-donor kidney and were followed up for more than 1 year were enrolled. The procedure was performed exclusively on the left kidney through either HALDN or ODN from January 2001 to July 2004. The probability of graft survival was determined using the Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariate analysis using a Cox regression hazard model was performed to identify the predictors of graft survival.

RESULTS

The mean operative time, estimated blood loss, warm ischemic time, and operation-related complications were compared. There was no difference in graft function. The cumulative graft survival at 1 and 3 years was similar in the two groups: 98% and 97%. Episodes of acute rejection were an independent predictor of graft survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy in living donors is safe and effective with results similar to those of open nephrectomy with regard to graft function.

Handassistierte transperitoneale laparoskopische Donornephrektomie

From December 2004 to May 2005 we performed hand assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in 13 female and seven male patients. The median age was 37 years. As immunosuppressant drug, we consistently used tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, methylprednisolone and a monoclonal antibody. The median surgical time was 138 min (range 113-180), and the median warm ischemic time was 87 s (range 63-150). These results are comparable to the surgical and warm ischemic times for open donor nephrectomy. The hospitalization period of the donors was between 5 and 7 days. Renal function and acute-phase parameters showed a transient increase during and after the operation. Most of the patients reached the baseline levels at day 3 and 4, respectively. Together with the clinical data, these findings verify the minimal invasiveness of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. In the future, this surgical method will probably be the procedure of choice.

Early Experience of a Living Donor Kidney Transplant Program

OBJECTIVES

Laparoscopic nephrectomy has been shown to reduce the morbidity of live donor nephrectomy, but post-transplant kidney function and safety issues with the procedure are still of some concern. The review of our early experience could detect errors that should be avoided in the refining of the technique.

METHODS

Our first sixty consecutive laparoscopic donor nephrectomies were analyzed retrospectively.

RESULTS

There were conversions to open surgery (5%), all three in the first 18 cases. All donors were alive at 1 year with a glomerular filtration rate of 85+/-21 ml/min (78% of the basal). Patient and graft survival at 1 year was 100% and 95%, respectively. Creatinine nadir was achieved on post-transplant day 3 (creatinine, 176+/-122 micromol/l). Late renal function proved a continuous improvement until the 2-year follow-up (creatinine, 135+/-29 micromol/l). Renal function recovery was better in both recipient and donor when the donor was < or =50 years old, compared with older patients. Transplant complications that required reintervention included one ureteral fistula, one ureteral stenosis and one case of low renal flow that was re-vascularised.

CONCLUSIONS

Technical surgical aspects such the use of Haemoloc clips in the clipping of the artery, the hand-assisted extraction of the kidney, a refined surgical technique during the transplant and avoidance of prolonged warm and cold ischemia, taken together with an adequate intraoperative hemodynamic management of the donor aid in avoiding life-threatening complications and achieving a good post-transplant renal function recovery.

Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Nephrectomy in Living Donors

Hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy (HLN) in living donors is a minimally invasive surgical modality that uses classic laparoscopic techniques either combined or not with the use of the surgeon's hand as a support tool during renal dissection maneuvers. The purpose of this study was to describe the initial experience with HLN technique in renal donors. Among 58 hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomies, the left kidney was removed in 39 donors (67%) and the right in 19 (33%). Surgery time ranged from 55 to 270 minutes (mean 156.9 +/- 49.5). Warm ischemia time ranged from 2 to 11 minutes (mean 4.38 +/- 2.31 min), with an estimated mean blood loss during the intraoperative period of 268 mL. Conversion to open surgery was required for four (6.8%) patients due to a vascular lesion. Upon graft evaluation, we observed immediate diuresis in 56 (96.3%) cases, with a mean serum creatinine on postoperative day 7 of 1.74 +/- 1.61 mg/dL. Renal vein thrombosis requiring graft removal occurred in one (1.7%) patient. Lymphocele was observed in three recipients (5.1%), and urinary leakage due to ureteral necrosis in three cases (5.1%). HLN for living donors is a safe procedure and an effective alternative to open nephrectomy. In this series, the procedure displayed low morbidity after surgery, providing a good morphological and functional quality of the graft for the recipient.

Persistent post-transplant polyuria managed by bilateral native-kidney laparoscopic nephrectomy

Polyuria is not considered an absolute indication for pre-transplant nephrectomy; however, it may complicate post-transplantation fluid management. Bilateral native-kidney laparoscopic nephrectomy was performed at our centre in two patients (four kidneys) 1 month after they had received a living related-donor renal transplant. The indication for nephrectomy was severe post-transplant polyuria secondary to the patient's underlying disease: juvenile nephronophthisis. Both patients had a persistent post-transplant daily urine output of 7-8 l/day and continued to have a variable serum creatinine level, dependent on intravenous hydration, more then 3 weeks after transplantation. Bilateral laparoscopic native-kidney nephrectomy in children has previously been reported. However, to the best of our knowledge, laparoscopic nephrectomy has not been described after kidney transplantation and certainly not in the immediate post-transplantation period. The procedure was well tolerated and did not affect renal graft function. In fact, following the procedure, serum creatinine levels stabilized, while daily fluid requirements decreased to 2.5-3.5 l/day in both patients. We concluded that bilateral native-kidney nephrectomy can be safely performed in paediatric renal transplant recipients in the immediate post-transplantation period. This new approach may allow preemptive transplantation and avoid the need for a transition period on dialysis in patients for whom pre-transplant nephrectomy is not absolutely indicated.

Meta-analysis of the complications of laparoscopic renal surgery: comparison of procedures and techniques

PURPOSE

We performed a meta-analysis of the literature to define the current expectations of complications during laparoscopic renal surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

References were searched in the MEDLINE database from 1995 to 2004 using the terms complications and laparoscopic nephrectomy. Inclusion criteria were any series with greater than 20 cases, patient age older than 16 years and any complications listed for certain procedures, including laparoscopic radical nephrectomy, HA laparoscopic radical nephrectomy, LPN, HALPN, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy, HA laparoscopic donor nephrectomy, laparoscopic simple nephrectomy, laparoscopic nephroureterectomy and retroperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy. A data extraction form was created to categorize major or minor complications. A 5 member panel adhered to the strict criteria and extracted data from articles that met inclusion criteria. Data were entered into a spreadsheet and a meta-analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Initial review identified 73 of 405 references that were acceptable for retrieval and data extraction, of which 56 met inclusion criteria. The overall major and minor complication rates of laparoscopic renal surgery were 9.5% and 1.9%, respectively. There was a significant difference between the major complication rates of LPN and HALPN (21.0% vs 3.3%, p <0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show that patients who undergo laparoscopic renal surgery may have an overall major complication rate of 9.5%. The highest major complication rate is associated with technically challenging LPN (21%). There appears to be a significantly higher wound complication rate associated with HA surgery in comparison to that of standard laparoscopy (1.9% vs 0.2%, p <0.05).

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.

200 Consecutive Hand Assisted Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomies: Evolution of Operative Technique and Outcomes

PURPOSE

Despite the popularity of hand assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy published experience is less than that with standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy and few critical assessments of operative maneuvers have been described.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We describe the impact of changes in operative technique made by a single surgeon during 200 hand assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomies.

RESULTS

With a mean operative time of 229 minutes and hospital stay of 1.9 days the rates of conversion to open surgery, intraoperative complications and major postoperative complications were 1%, 1.5% and 6%, respectively. Lasting changes in technique were dissection of a ureteral/gonadal packet, bipolar cautery use on gonadal/adrenal/lumbar veins and resting the kidney before removal. The incidence of ureteral complications decreased from 8% to 5.1% with dissection of the ureter in conjunction with the gonadal vein rather than isolating it. Warm ischemia time decreased from a mean of 186 to 143 seconds with bipolar electrocautery instead of clips to control gonadal/adrenal/lumbar veins. After starting to rest the kidney before removal the incidence of primary graft nonfunction and delayed function decreased from 6.7% to 0% and 30% to 11.8%, respectively, with a corresponding improvement in 2-year graft survival from 83% to 95%.

CONCLUSIONS

This large series of hand assisted donor laparoscopic nephrectomies with a mean followup approaching 3 years demonstrates that the procedure is safe for the donor and procures a good specimen. Decreases in ureteral complications, warm ischemia time and graft dysfunction might be attributable to specific changes in our operative technique.

Retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy: donor outcome and complication rate in comparison with three different techniques

Four surgical techniques for living donor nephrectomy were analyzed retrospectively in terms of perioperative outcome and early complication rate. A total of 182 donor nephrectomies including 69 open (OLDN), 14 fully laparoscopic (LDN), 34 hand-assisted laparoscopic (HLDN) and 65 retroperitoneoscopic (RLDN) nephrectomies were analyzed. There was a significant difference in mean operating time (OPT) between the OLDN (160 min) and RLDN (150 min) as compared to the LDN (212 min) and HLDN group (192 min) (P < 0.001). Mean warm ischemia time (WIT) was significantly shorter with OLDN (114 s), RLDN (121 s) and HLDN (128 s) when compared to LDN (238 s) (P < 0.001). Major complication rate was comparable among the groups. Independent of the preferred technique, donor nephrectomy is associated with complication rates. RLDN is comparable to OLDN in terms of OPT, WIT. Learning endoscopic donor nephrectomy could be associated with a higher complication rate.

Hand Assisted Retroperitoneoscopic Living Donor Nephrectomy in Elderly Donors

PURPOSE

We assessed the influence of HARDN on residual donor kidney and allograft function, invasiveness and morbidity in elderly living donors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 89 living donors underwent nephrectomy before September 2004 at our institution. The 18 donors who were 65 years or older included 4 of 27 with ODN and 14 of 62 with HARDN.

RESULTS

In older (65 years or older) donors mean operative time, mean blood loss and warm ischemia time in the HARDN group did not differ from those in the ODN group. None of the donors had major complications. Older donors with HARDN had a tendency toward a shorter hospital stay than those with ODN. Postoperative serum creatinine in older donors with HARDN was higher than that in younger donors with HARDN, while there was no difference in postoperative serum creatinine between older donors with HARDN and those with ODN. The frequency of allograft losses tended to be higher in older than in younger kidneys (4 of 18 vs 5 of 71, p = 0.054). However, most allograft losses did not seem to be related to surgical technique.

CONCLUSIONS

Although further studies, especially with long-term followup, are necessary, HARDN is suggested to be safe and minimally invasive surgery even in elderly donors and to be comparable to open surgery in terms of morbidity, the residual donor kidney and allograft function.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy as a minimally invasive option in the treatment of large renal specimens

INTRODUCTION

We describe our experience with hand-assisted laparoscopy (HAL) as an option for the treatment of large renal specimens.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between March 2000 and August 2004, 13 patients candidate to nephrectomies due to benign renal conditions with kidneys larger than 20 cm were included in a prospective protocol. Unilateral nephrectomy was performed in cases of hydronephrosis (6 patients) or giant pyonephrosis (4 patients). Bilateral nephrectomy was performed in 3 patients with adult polycystic kidney disease (APKD) with low back pain refractory to clinical treatment previous to kidney transplant. The technique included the introduction of 2 to 3 10 mm ports, manual incision to allow enough space for the surgeon's wrist without a commercial device to keep the pneumoperitoneum. The kidney was empty, preferably extracorporeally, enough to be removed through manual incision. We have assessed operative times, transfusions, complications, conversions, hospital stay and convalescence.

RESULTS

The patients mean age (9 women and 4 men) was 58 years. Mean operating time was 120 +/- 10 min (hydronephrosis), 160 +/- 28 min (pyonephrosis) and 190 +/- 13 min (bilateral surgery for APKD). There was a need for a conversion in 1 case and another patient needed a transfusion due to a lesion in the renal vein; 2 patients had minor complications.

CONCLUSIONS

HAL surgery is a minimally invasive alternative in the treatment of large renal specimens, with or without significant inflammation.

Modifications of Renal Blood Flow and Serum Interleukin Levels Induced by Laparoscopic and Open Living Donor Nephrectomies For Kidney Transplant: An Experimental Study in Pigs

The increase of intraabdominal pressure (IAP) during laparoscopy modifies renal blood flow (RBF). However, laparoscopic techniques are less invasive than open procedures. The use of interleukins (IL) to evaluate operative trauma of different surgical techniques is controversial. The aim of the study was to analyze the, modifications induced by laparoscopic and open nephrectomies on RBF, renal function and IL levels. Thirty pigs underwent left nephrectomy, 15 by laparoscopy and 15 by an open approach in an experimental autotransplant model. A significant reduction in RBF was observed among the laparoscopic (80 +/- 27 mL/min) versus the open group (263 +/- 3 mL/min, P < .05). Laparoscopy reduced glomerular filtration (GF) (37.6 +/- 1.1%) to a greater extent than an open technique (80.5 +/- 0.4%; P < .05). Serum levels of IL-2, IL-6, IL-10, and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) were lower during laparoscopic than open nephrectomy: 6.8 +/- 0.6 versus 13 .9 +/- 1.1 pg/mL for IL-2, 46.2 +/- 2.3 versus 84.4 +/- 2.5 pg/mL for IL-6, 26.1 +/- 2.4 versus 92.8 +/- 12.6 pg/mL for IL-10, and 17.6 +/- 2.1 versus 38.5 +/- 4.8 pg/mL for TNF (P <.001). In conclusion, laparoscopic nephrectomy for living donor kidney transplant induced significant reductions in RBF and GF. However, there was less increase in IL levels during laparoscopic than the open approach. The influence of these circumstances on graft function after kidney transplantation is not clearly established.

Hand-Assisted Retroperitoneoscopic Live Donor Nephrectomy: Experience from the First 75 Consecutive Cases

BACKGROUND

The two major life-threatening complications associated with laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy are sudden severe bleeding and intestinal injury. A combined technique-hand-assisted and retroperitoneoscopic (HARS)-reduces the risk of these life-threatening complications. In this study, we report on our experience from the first 75 consecutive HARS operations.

METHODS

The data has been collected prospectively according to intention to treat and includes all consecutive donors operated with the HARS technique. Warm ischemia time, operating time, and blood loss were recorded. Complications, convalescence, and allograft outcome were followed postoperatively with a mean follow-up of 701 (range 60-1438) days.

RESULTS

The mean operating time was 138 (range 85-260) minutes and the mean warm ischemia time 175 (85-510) seconds. The operative time was significantly longer in male donors. The mean bleeding was 176 (50-700) ml. There were no conversions to open surgery. Major complications comprised one pulmonary embolus and one donor required 2 units of blood transfusion. One donor was reoperated due to suspicion of trocar hernia. Nine patients experienced minor complications (fever, n=4; urinary tract infection, n=2; chylous ascites, n=1; orchialgia, n=1; subcostal pain, n=1). All except two kidneys had immediate onset of function. Neither of these could, however, be attributed to the donor operation. One recipient experienced urinary leakage and one a stenosis. Recipient and graft survival were 99% and 96%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that HARS facilitates the procedure by enabling short operating times and at the same time significantly reducing the risks associated with endoscopic live donor nephrectomy.

Laparoscopic nephrectomy: new standard of care?

OBJECTIVE

The pace of implementation of a laparoscopic nephrectomy programme is affected by factors including surgical expertise, case load, learning curves and outcome audits. We report our experience in introducing a laparoscopic nephrectomy programme over a 3-year period.

METHODS

From January 2001 to December 2003, 187 nephrectomies were performed (105 by conventional surgery, 82 by laparoscopy). Hand-assisted laparoscopy was used predominantly. The indications for surgery, factors affecting the approach and outcome parameters were studied. A cost comparison was made between patients with similar-sized renal tumours undergoing laparoscopic versus open surgery.

RESULTS

Most operations were performed for malignancy in both the open (70%) and laparoscopic (67%) surgery groups. The laparoscopic approach was most commonly used in upper tract transitional cell cancers (TCCs; 70% of 30 patients) and benign pathologies (49% of 35 patients), followed by radical nephrectomies (34% of 99 patients) and donor nephrectomies (44% of 23 patients). There was a rapid rise in laparoscopic surgeries, from 30% in 2001 to 58% in 2002. The median hospital stay was 5.8 days in the laparoscopic group and 8.1 days in the open surgery group. The procedure cost for laparoscopic surgery was 4,943 dollars compared with 4,479 dollars for open surgery. However, due to a shorter hospital stay, the total hospital cost was slightly lower in the laparoscopic group (7,500 dollars versus 7,907 dollars).

CONCLUSION

The laparoscopic approach for various renal pathologies was quickly established with a rapid increase in the number of laparoscopic procedures.

Telementoring facilitates independent hand-assisted laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy

Laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy is a major advance but a challenging procedure to learn even after laparoscopic training. It requires significant previous training in both laparoscopic and transplant surgery. Telementoring has been shown to reduce the laparoscopic learning curve in other fields. Of six cases of hand-assisted laparoscopic (HAL) living donor nephrectomy at our institution, an on-site mentor supervised the initial two. We present the subsequent four cases as the first documented examples of telementored HAL live donor nephrectomy. Telelink was established with a Comstation (Zydacron, UK) incorporating a Z360 telementoring codec and four ISDN lines (512 kb/s) with time delay of 500 ms for both audio and video. The remote surgeon in Minnesota (USA) could change independently between the laparoscopic and external views. The operating surgeons were able to look at the mentor and converse with him throughout. There were no adverse events in recipients and graft function was excellent. With regards to the telementored group the mean operative time was 240 minutes, the mean warm ischemic time 189 seconds, the mean estimated blood loss 171 mL, and the mean length of hospital stay 3 days. Telementoring for laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is feasible, effective, and likely to aid independent practice by providing continued supervision and reducing the learning period.