Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy at a low volume living donor transplant center: successful outcomes can be expected

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.

Living Kidney Donor Decision Making: State of the Science and Directions for Future Research

Background

The Federal government and transplantation organizations have called for further study of living donation at a time when 3 new living donor protocols are being introduced throughout the United States that promise to significantly increase the donor pool and change the face of living donation. Donation to a once incompatible and sometimes unknown recipient may now occur through the use of plasmapheresis therapy or paired and nondirected living donor protocols.

Objective

To describe the state of the science on living kidney donor decision making, and to provide recommendations for future research to guide donor education and care.

Data Sources

Automated literature search using PubMed and CINAHL scientific literature databases.

Study Data Extraction

Research papers on living donor decision making from 1997 to 2003. Studies available only as abstracts were excluded. Data Synthesis Studies of living kidney donor decision making and outcomes have been limited in scope, with small sample sizes and inconsistent reports of racial and ethnic characteristics of the sample. The retrospective nature of the majority of living donor studies is a significant limitation.

Conclusions

Future prospective studies that are diverse by sex, race, and ethnicity will contribute to our knowledge of factors that influence the decision to be a living kidney donor.

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy - safety in a small-volume transplant center

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopy is a standard surgical option for live donor nephrectomy (LDN) at the majority of transplant centers. Equivalent graft survival with shorter convalescence has been reported by several large volume centers. With the arrival of an experienced laparoscopic surgeon in 2002, we began to offer laparoscopic LDN at our institution. We report our experience as a large volume laparoscopic surgery program but a low volume transplant center.

METHODS

A retrospective review of the previous 34 LDN (17 open, 17 laparoscopic) performed at the University of Missouri were included. A single laparoscopic surgeon performed all laparoscopic procedures. Hand assisted laparoscopy was performed in 15 and standard laparoscopy with a pfannenstiel incision in two. Open procedures were performed through anterior subcostal or flank incision. A single surgeon performed all open procedures.

RESULTS

There was no statistical difference in age, body mass index or American Society of Anesthesiologies Score between the two groups. Mean operative time, estimated blood loss and hospital stay were 229 minutes, 324 cc and 2.2 days respectively in the laparoscopic group compared to 202 minutes, 440 cc and five days for the open group. Average warm ischemia time was 179 seconds. Recipient creatinine for the two groups at one week, one month and one year was not statistically significantly different. Each group had one graft loss due to medication noncompliance.

CONCLUSION

For small transplant centers with an advanced laparoscopic program, laparoscopic LDN is a safe procedure with comparable outcomes to major transplant centers.

Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: Are ten cases per year enough to reach the quality standards? A report from a single small-volume transplant center

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy is the preferred method of kidney donation in high-volume US transplant centers, but for small transplant programs the question of the minimal case load per year necessary to reach the quality standards is open.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From 1996 to 2007 we performed 130 live kidney donations including 93 laparoscopic donor nephrectomies followed by transplantation in a community hospital with an average case load of 10 laparoscopic cases per year. We compared the results after 37 open and 93 laparoscopic live donor operations with respect to operating time, conversion rate, complications, and recipients' outcome.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in terms of safe outcome of donor patients after open or laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. The mean operating time was significantly shorter (p < 0.001) in the open group (125 min, OG) than in the laparoscopic group (150 min, LG). Mean hospital stay was significantly shorter (p < 0.001) in LG (6.8 days) versus OG (9.7 days). The conversion rate was 3.2% in the LG. Postoperative complication of donors consisted of temporary nerve irritation (two patients) and retroperitoneal hematoma (one patient) in the LG, and wound infection followed by hernia formation (one patient) and ileus 1 year after organ donation (one patient) in the OG. Safe outcome of the recipients after open (RaOD) or laparoscopic donation (RaLD) was similar. Uneventful transplantation occurred in 94.6% of the RaOD and in 92.5% of the RaLD. One kidney was lost due to renal vein thrombosis (RaLD). Mean postoperative creatinine after 4 weeks showed no difference between RaOD (1.6 mg/dl) and RaLD (1.7 mg/dl).

CONCLUSION

Approximately ten cases per year may be enough to ensure safety and quality of laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy.

Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy: Short Learning Curve

INTRODUCTION

The learning curve of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) may represent a great technical challenge at centers with low volume of living donors. The number of LDNs required to overcome the learning curve is still unclear. Here we report the modality of approach to LDN at a low-volume living donor transplant center.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We reviewed the records of two groups of donors operated by two different surgeons between January 2002 and October 2005. We compared donor hospital stay, operative time, presence of multiple renal arteries, blood loss, operative details, and complications.

RESULTS

The first six operations (group A) were performed by a well-trained laparoscopic surgeon (A.P.) with a consolidated experience in the LDN procedure, attended by our training surgeon (R.D.V.) who conducted the other six cases (group B). No conversion to an open procedure was necessary and there were no major minor complications. Mean operative time was 267.5 (+/-55.9) minutes in group A and 300 (+/-43.4) minutes in group B (P = .28). Mean warm ischemia time was 125 (+/-61.6) seconds in group A and 189.2 (+/-18.6) seconds in group B (P = .035). Mean hospital stay was 5.3 days in group A and 5.6 days in group B.

CONCLUSIONS

LDN can be performed safely and efficiently in transplant centers with initial experience. A collaborative approach to this difficult procedure with a surgeon skilled in donor nephrectomy minimizes the risk to the donor and reduces the learning curve.

Living kidney donor decision making: state of the science and directions for future research

BACKGROUND

The Federal government and transplantation organizations have called for further study of living donation at a time when 3 new living donor protocols are being introduced throughout the United States that promise to significantly increase the donor pool and change the face of living donation. Donation to a once incompatible and sometimes unknown recipient may now occur through the use of plasmapheresis therapy or paired and nondirected living donor protocols.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the state of the science on living kidney donor decision making, and to provide recommendations for future research to guide donor education and care.

DATA SOURCES

Automated literature search using PubMed and CINAHL scientific literature databases. STUDY DATA EXTRACTION: Research papers on living donor decision making from 1997 to 2003. Studies available only as abstracts were excluded.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Studies of living kidney donor decision making and outcomes have been limited in scope, with small sample sizes and inconsistent reports of racial and ethnic characteristics of the sample. The retrospective nature of the majority of living donor studies is a significant limitation.

CONCLUSIONS

Future prospective studies that are diverse by sex, race, and ethnicity will contribute to our knowledge of factors that influence the decision to be a living kidney donor.