Outcomes of pediatric living donor renal transplant after laparoscopic versus open donor nephrectomy

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy for the pediatric recipient population: Risk factors for adverse outcomes

Kidney transplantation is the optimal treatment of ESRD in children. Some studies have reported inferior outcomes in recipients of LDN allografts who are ≤ 5 yr of age. We performed a retrospective review of pediatric recipient outcomes of 110 LDN allografts at our institution and examined predictors of adverse outcomes. Subgroup analysis was performed by dividing recipients into three age categories: 0-5 yr, 6-17 yr, and ≥ 18 yr. There was no significant difference between incidences of DGF or ARE between groups. Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated 100% allograft survival in 0- to 5-yr-old recipients, nearly reaching statistical significance (p = 0.07) for outcome superior to that of the two older age groups. Pretransplant HD was associated with increased risk of DGF (p = 0.05). Significant risk factors for ARE were recipient weight >15 kg (p = 0.033) and multiple renal arteries (p = 0.047). Previous ARE was associated with an increased risk of allograft failure (p = 0.02). LDN is not associated with increased risk of DGF, ARE, or allograft failure in the youngest recipients. These findings support an aggressive pursuit of preemptive transplantation even in the youngest pediatric allograft recipients.

Evaluating graft function in pediatric recipients for living donor renal transplantation: Is laparoscopic donor nephrectomy safe?

Objective:

To evaluate the surgical and functional outcomes of laparoscopic graft procurement in pediatric patients undergoing renal transplantation.

Materials and Methods:

A retrospective chart review of the cohort records of 54 pediatric living donor renal transplant recipients from 1985 through June 2006 was performed. We compared results of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN, n = 15) and open donor nephrectomy (ODN, n = 39). Parameters analysed included donor technique and morbidity, operative complications, immediate postoperative renal function, the incidence of early and delayed graft function, and long-term graft survival.

Results:

The mean age of these recipients was 14.8 years (5-18) in the LDN group and 13.9 years (8-18) in ODN group. Serum creatinine (mg/dl) was 1.5 ± 0.7 vs 1.8 ± 1.3 at day 1 (P = 0.20), 1.0 ± 0.3 vs 1.4 ± 1.3 at day 2 (P = 0.12), 1.1 ± 0.9 vs 1.3 ± 1.0 at day 7 (P = 0.25), 1.2 ± 0.5 vs 1.6 ± 1.8 (P = 0.20) at day 14, 1.1 ± 0.7 vs 1.2 ± 1.4 (P = 0.39) at 1 month in LDN vs ODN groups, respectively. Early graft function was 35.7 vs 46.4% in the respective groups. There were two delayed graft function and one graft nonfunction in ODN group. Over all graft and patient survival at 1 year was 86.67 and 82.22% (P = 0.34) in LDN and ODN groups, respectively.

Conclusion:

Pediatric recipients of the LDN grafts have outcomes comparable to those of ODN graft recipients. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is safe and efficacious for graft procurement for pediatric recipients.

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.

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.

Living Donor Nephrectomy: Open versus Laparoscopic Technique

Background

The living donor nephrectomy has to be safe and effective, allowing a good graft function in the recipient. In the past, donor nephrectomy was performed only by open technique; more recently this nephrectomy has also been performed by laparoscopic technique. The best technique has not been established in literature. The purpose of this study is to report the results of open and laparoscopic nephrectomy in living donors.

Materials and Methods

From January 1992 to August 2008, 37 living donor nephrectomies were performed. 23 nephrectomies were achieved by laparoscopic procedure (LDN) and 14 by open technique (ODN). The 2 groups were comparable regarding both donor and recipient characteristics.

Results

All laparoscopic nephrectomies were successfully performed without conversion to open procedure. No donor deaths were reported in either groups. 3 complications (13%) in the LDN group and 1 (7.1%) in the ODN group (p=0.6) were observed. Mean operative time was higher in the LDN group (p<0.036). Mean warm and cold ischemia time, resumption of oral intake and hospital stay were shorter in the LDN group (p<0.04)(p<0.03) (p<0.0001), whereas the return to normal occupational life was similar (p<0.52). We had no significant differences in the surgical complication rates, graft and patient survival.

Conclusions

Our experience suggests that both procedures can be used safely and efficiently, and assure a good renal function in the recipient. Laparoscopic nephrectomy, although more difficult, provides post-operative advantages. However, laparoscopic procedure must be performed by experienced centres only to prevent serious complications in the donor.

Effect of donor pneumoperitoneum on early allograft perfusion following renal transplantation in pediatric patients: an intraoperative Doppler ultrasound study

Decreased perfusion and trauma during laparoscopic harvesting are proposed causative factors for DGF and rejection in children following renal transplantation with laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) allograft. We performed a retrospective review of 11 children who underwent LDN transplant and 11 preceding patients who underwent ODN transplant. Intraoperative DUS findings, creatinine values and clearance, time to nadir creatinine and AR episodes were compared. There were no significant differences in the BMI, vascular anatomy, side of nephrectomy, or warm ischemia time in the two groups. Mean follow-up duration was 11.4 and 30.4 months in LDN and ODN groups. DUS showed initial turbulent flow in five of the LDN and four of the ODN group with an average RI of 0.59 and 0.66 in the ODN and LDN groups, respectively (NS). Three patients in the ODN group had an abnormal RI compared to none in the LDN group (p = 0.034). The creatinine values, creatinine clearances (at 24 h, one, four wk and last follow-up) and AR episodes were similar in both groups. Pneumoperitoneum during LDN does not appear to have an adverse impact on early graft reperfusion.

Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: the pediatric recipient in a dual-site program

BACKGROUND

At our institution, laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (LLDN) is done at a different hospital site than pediatric recipient transplantation, whereas open donor nephrectomy (OLDN) is done in the adjacent operating room. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety of a dual-site renal transplantation program by comparing the outcomes of pediatric recipients of LLDN vs. OLDN.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of consecutive pediatric recipients (n = 10) of LLDN (June 2002 to June 2005) compared to the 10 most recent pediatric recipients of OLDN (March 2001 to June 2005). Renal function was assessed with calculated creatinine clearance using the Schwartz formula and the following outcomes were assessed: delayed graft function, ureteral complications, acute rejection and patient and graft survival. Results are expressed as median (IQR).

RESULTS

When comparing the laparoscopic vs. open group, there were no significant differences in recipient age, height, weight, preoperative calculated creatinine clearance and warm ischemia time. Twelve month postoperative creatinine clearance was 88 ml/min/1.73 m(2) (57-99) in the laparoscopic group (n = 8) and 66 ml/min/1.73 m(2) (60-86) in the open group (n = 9), p = 0.2. In the LLDN group vs. the OLDN group, delayed graft function was 0% vs. 10% (p = 1.0), ureteral complications were 20% vs. 30% (p = 1.0), and acute rejection was 20% vs. 40% (p = 0.6). In the laparoscopic group, one-yr patient and graft survival were both 100%, as compared to 100% and 89%, respectively, in the open group.

CONCLUSION

A dual-site laparoscopic donor nephrectomy program is not associated with adverse pediatric recipient outcomes when compared to a same-site open donor approach.

Impact of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy on allograft function in pediatric renal transplant recipients: a single-center report

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) is rapidly becoming the preferred technique for the procurement of living donor kidneys. An association of this technique with delayed graft function and higher risk for rejection has been reported in pediatric recipients. We reviewed our experience of 17 pediatric patients who received a living donor kidney, from 2002 to 2004, procured by LDN, and compared it with a matched group that received living donor kidneys harvested by the open technique. Patient demographics, etiology of renal failure, intra-operative events, length of stay, serum creatinine decline, and graft function were reviewed. Our experience confirmed the findings of earlier reports specifically in small pediatric recipients. The LDN group showed a significantly slower decline in creatinine in the immediate post-operative period and longer intra-operative time. However, there was no difference between the two groups in the length of hospital stay, and creatinine clearances at discharge, six, 12 and 24 months post-operatively. The incidence of acute rejection was similar in both groups. LDN is a safe procurement modality for pediatric patients. The risk for prolonged OR time and delay graft function has to be considered during the evaluation process.

Laparoscopic versus open renal procurement for pediatric recipients of living donor renal transplantation

Despite reports demonstrating the safety of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) for pediatric recipients of renal transplants, recent evidence has challenged using LDN for recipients 5 years of age or younger. We retrospectively reviewed the records of all pediatric recipients of living donor renal transplants from September 2000 through August 2004. We compared those who received allografts recovered by LDN (n = 34) with those recovered by open donor nephrectomy (ODN, n = 26). Outcomes of interest included operative complications, postoperative renal function, the incidence of delayed graft function or episodes of acute rejection and long-term graft function. Donor and recipient demographic data were similar for the LDN and ODN groups. Serum creatinine and calculated creatinine clearance were not significantly different between groups both in the early postoperative period and at long-term follow-up (p > 0.142). Rates of delayed graft function and acute rejection did not differ between groups. Among recipients aged 5 years old or younger stratified by donor technique (9 LDN, 5 ODN recipients), no difference was noted in graft outcomes both early and long-term (p > 0.079). At our center, pediatric LDN recipients have graft outcomes comparable to those of ODN recipients. At experienced centers, we recommend continued use of LDN for pediatric recipients of all ages.

Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: a risk factor for delayed function and rejection in pediatric kidney recipients? A UNOS analysis

The impact of laparoscopic (vs. open) donor nephrectomy on early graft function and survival in pediatric kidney recipients (< or =18 years) is unknown. We studied 995 pediatric live donor txs reported to UNOS from January 2000 to June 2002, in two recipient age groups: 0-5 years (n = 212, 44% laparoscopic donors [LapD]) and 6-18 years (n = 783, 50% LapD). Delayed graft function (DGF) rates were higher for LapD versus open donor (OpD) txs (0-5 years, 12.8% vs. 2.5% [p = 0.004]; 6-18 years, 5.9% vs. 2.8% [p = 0.03]). Acute rejection incidence for LapD versus OpD txs was higher at 6 months for recipients 0-5 years (18.6% vs. 5.9%, p = 0.01) and 6-18 years (22.5% vs. 15.6%, p = 0.03), and 1 year for recipients 0-5 years (24.3% vs. 7.9%, p = 0.004). In multivariate analyses, significant independent risk factors for rejection at 6 months and 1 year were recipient age 6-18 years, pretx dialysis, LapD nephrectomy and DGF. Graft survival was similar for LapD versus OpD txs. In this retrospective UNOS database analysis, LapD procurement was associated with increased DGF and an independent risk factor for rejection during the first year, particularly for recipients 0-5-years old. Future investigations must confirm these findings and identify strategies to optimize procurement and pediatric recipient outcome.

A Systematic Review of Laparoscopic Live-Donor Nephrectomy

BACKGROUND

A systematic review was undertaken to assess the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic live-donor nephrectomy (LLDN) compared with open live-donor nephrectomy (OLDN).

METHODS

Literature databases were searched from inception to March 2003 inclusive. Comparative studies of LLDN versus OLDN (randomized and nonrandomized) were included.

RESULTS

There were 44 included studies, and the quality of the available evidence was average. There was only one randomized controlled trial and six nonrandomized comparative studies with concurrent controls identified. In terms of safety, for donors, there did not seem to be any distinct difference between the laparoscopic and open approaches. No donor mortality was reported for either procedure, and the complication rates were similar although the types of complications experienced differed between the two procedures. The conversion rate for LLDN to an open procedure ranged from 0% to 13%. In terms of efficacy, LLDN seemed to be a slower operation with longer warm ischemia times than OLDN, but this did not seem to have resulted in increased rates of delayed graft function for recipients. Donor postoperative recovery and convalescence seemed to be superior for LLDN, making it a potentially more attractive operation for living donors. Although in the short-term, graft function and survival did not seem to differ between the two techniques, long-term complication rates and allograft function could not be determined and further long-term follow-up is required.

CONCLUSIONS

LLDN seems to be at least as safe and efficacious as OLDN in the short-term. However, it remains a technique in evolution. Further high-quality studies are required to resolve some of the outstanding issues surrounding its use, in particular, long-term follow-up of donor complications and recipient graft function and survival.

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy for pediatric recipients: outcomes analysis

OBJECTIVES

To present our outcomes of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy for pediatric recipients. Laparoscopic nephrectomy has become the technique of choice for live donor nephrectomy. However, limited data are available regarding the role of this technique for pediatric recipients, who may pose special challenges and considerations, and whose parents need additional information.

METHODS

Since November 1999, we have performed laparoscopic nephrectomy in more than 300 consecutive patients for live donor transplantation. Of these, 20 cases were identified that involved a recipient younger than 18 years of age. The preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative data were reviewed to analyze the outcomes of these specific cases. The data were compared with a similar group of pediatric recipients receiving kidneys procured using the traditional open technique.

RESULTS

The mean donor and recipient age was 40 years (range 26 to 52) and 13 years (range 1.7 to 18), respectively, and 19 cases (95%) involved the left kidney. The mean donor and recipient operative time was 3.3 hours (range 2.5 to 5.2) and 3.9 hours (range 2.4 to 5.1), respectively. The warm and anastomotic time averaged 4 minutes (range 2 to 8) and 30 minutes (range 16 to 41), respectively. Nineteen of the grafts functioned immediately, with a mean creatinine at 24 hours of 2.0 mg/dL (range 0.3 to 6.0). At last follow-up (mean 13.6 months), the mean creatinine was 1.1 mg/dL. Ureteral stricture requiring stent placement occurred in 2 patients (10%). No statistically significant differences were noted in operative parameters, complications, or renal function compared with a contemporary cohort of 26 pediatric patients receiving organs obtained by open donor nephrectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Our early experience with laparoscopic donor nephrectomy for pediatric recipients confirmed that the technique provides quality organs with excellent function. The method yields outcomes comparable to those after traditional open donor nephrectomy and does not require modifications for the recipient operation.