Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is the future

[Ten years of laparoscopic living kidney donation. From an extravagant to a routine procedure]

Ten years ago the first laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy (LDN) was performed. Today, LDN is a routine operation in many US-American transplantation centers and an increasing number of centers in Europe are practicing LDN. In this article the different aspects of LDN for donor, kidney, recipient and operating surgeon are evaluated. We performed a literature research concerning LDN and the different aspects. Our own experience, as the largest LDN center in Germany, is part of the evaluation. Laparoscopic extraction of a kidney from a living donor is as safe for the donor as the open approach. At the same time, LDN offers multiple advantages like reduced pain and shorter convalescence. For the donated kidney and the recipient no disadvantages occur from the laparoscopic technique, as long as special intra- and perioperative demands are met. For the operating surgeon multiple developments have expanded the technical armentarium. LDN is safe for donor, recipient and kidney. Central issue of an optimal LDN is sufficient experience with laparoscopic urological techniques.

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.

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.