Living Donor Nephrectomy

Pharmacotherapy of prostatitis

IMPORTANCE OF THE FIELD

Prostatitis is a prevalent and morbid condition with a significant impact on a patient's quality of life. The four distinct prostatitis syndromes have different pathophysiologies, therapy and prognosis. Acute and chronic bacterial prostatitis is best treated with appropriate antibiotics that penetrate the prostate and kill the causative organisms. The most challenging category to treat is category III or chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome.

AREAS COVERED IN THE REVIEW

This review covers the categories of prostatitis and currently recommended therapies, as well as novel approaches on the horizon.

WHAT THE READER WILL GAIN

Knowledge of the current framework for the diagnosis and management of the diverse prostatitis spectrum.

TAKE HOME MESSAGE

Prostatitis is a diverse group of syndromes. Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome is a multifactorial syndrome that requires a multimodal approach to effectively treat the patient. The UPOINT technique is used to clinically phenotype these patients and drive the selection of multimodal therapy.

Evaluation of cadaveric renal vein lengths and their extension loss with three types of ligature and section

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The right kidney has been less frequently used in live donor nephrectomy, because of the shorter length of the right renal vein (RRV) that is associated with technical difficulties and higher rates of venous thrombosis. In live open donor or deceased donor transplant nephrectomy, an additional cuff of the inferior vena cava is usually removed, but this is a more difficult and risky maneuver in laparoscopic nephrectomy. For this reason, laparoscopic right nephrectomy (LRN) for renal transplantation (RT) is not frequently performed in most medical institutions. We evaluate the difference between RRV and left renal vein (LRV) lengths in cadavers, as harvested for RT by three clamping methods. Our objective was to obtain information that could clarify when LRN for RT should be encouraged or avoided with regard to conventional surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ninety adult fresh unfrozen cadavers were randomly divided into three groups of 30, according to the clamping device used: Satinsky, stapler, and Hem-o-lok clip. The abdominal viscera were removed through a median xyphopubic incision, and the veins were measured on the bench. Two lateral limits were used: The renal hilum and the tangential line of the renal poles. As for medial limits, the inferior vena cava or the laparoscopic clipping device on the RRV were used on the right side, while on the LRV, the medial border of the emergence of the adrenal vein was considered. After section of the renal vein, a slight traction of the extremity was applied for the measurement. All measurements were obtained three times using a metallic millimetric ruler, and the arithmetic mean was considered. The chi-square, one-way analysis of variance, and paired t tests were used for statistical analysis. Statistical significance was accepted at P <or= 0.05.

RESULTS

The groups of cadavers were homogeneous in demographic characteristics. Regardless of the clamping method and considering the useful length of the LRV, the RRV was statistically smaller. The evaluation of the vein length did not depend on the lateral limit considered. Independent of the clamping method, on both sides, the lengths after the vein section were larger than before the section, a fact attributed to traction. Use of a stapler and a single Hem-o-lok presented the same waste of vein length on the right side. On average, the RRV was 13.7% shorter than the LRV.

CONCLUSIONS

With the wide acceptance of laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy, the length difference between the veins of both kidneys is an important issue, and the right kidney is therefore used less than the left, compared with conventional surgery. This article represents the first step to quantify the anatomic length of renal veins in different situations. Certainly, more imagenologic or surgical studies should be carried out before decisions can be made for better selection of patients for LRN.

[Experience initial right side laparoscopic live donor]

Live donor nephrectomy laparoscopic technique is now standard. However, the right side is controversial because of the short length of the renal vein and the incidence of venous thrombosis.

METHODS

A prospective study of patients live donors since May 2006 to September 2008 in which right nephrectomy was performed by laparoscopic live donor. The placement of trocares was usual and the transperitoneal approach. Incision was used for the extraction of Gibson.

RESULTS

Of the 10 selected patients, 1 was excluded due to conversion to open technique. The criteria for lateralization were sex, renal volume and complex vascular anatomy. 6 patients had made back-table reconstruction surgery with prosthetic vascular due to the length of the renal vein. The average operative time was 158.3 minutes and the bleeding averaged 272 cc. Warm ischemia time averaged 3.2 minutes. The average hospital stay was 1.6 days. 1 recipient presenting delayed graft dysfunction.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic live donor right nephrectomy offers an excellent quality of graft, being a technique feasible and safe, maintaining the principle of leaving the best kidney donor.

Multidetector row computed tomography evaluation of potential living laparoscopic renal donors: the story so far

Renal transplantation is the treatment of choice for end-stage renal disease. Living related kidney donation is the major source of renal grafts due to limited availability of cadaveric kidneys. Open nephrectomy was used to harvest donor kidneys. However, the laparoscopic approach is associated with less postoperative pain and quick recovery. So, most centers now prefer a laparoscopic approach to explant donor kidneys. Laparoscopic approach is technically challenging due to limited operative visibility. Hence, accurate preoperative detection of renal arterial and venous anomalies is imperative to avoid inadvertent vascular injury and bleeding. The preoperative workup of renal donors includes clinical evaluation, laboratory tests, and imaging. Traditionally, the renal donors were evaluated with conventional imaging techniques, which included renal catheter angiography and intravenous urography. However, conventional imaging is invasive, expensive, and less accurate for evaluation of complex renal venous anomalies, small calculi, and diffuse or focal renal parenchymal lesions. The introduction of multidetector row computed tomography (MDCT) revolutionized the CT technology by enabling isotropic resolution with faster scan coverage in a single, short breath-hold. Consequently, MDCT has now replaced conventional imaging for comprehensive imaging of potential living renal donors. MDCT is a minimally invasive technique that can accurately detect urolithiasis, renal arterial and venous anomalies, renal parenchymal lesions, and urinary tract anomalies. Renal vascular anomalies detected by MDCT can help the surgeon in planning donor nephrectomy. MDCT with three-dimensional CT angiography enables accurate preoperative renal vascular mapping. This article reviews the role of MDCT in preoperative evaluation of potential laparoscopic renal donors.

Introduction of Hand-Assisted Retroperitoneoscopic Living Donor Nephrectomy at Karolinska University Hospital Huddinge

Living donor kidney transplantation accounts for about 50% of the total number of renal transplantations at our center. From 1999 through 2005, 75 out of 220 living donor nephrectomies were performed with a laparoscopic technique (LLDN). In June 2005, we introduced the technique of hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic nephrectomy (HARS) for living donors. Since the introduction until the end of 2005, 11 out of 18 living donor nephrectomies (LDN) were performed with HARS. Reduced operation time was observed for the HARS group (mean, 166 minutes) compared with the LLDN (mean, 244 minutes). Two grafts showed delayed function, one in the LLND group and one in the HARS group. No major perioperative or postoperative complications were observed in the HARS group, whereas one patient who underwent LLDN developed severe pancreatitis. So far in our hands HARS is a fast and safe procedure with results comparable with open LDN. Compared to LLDN, we experienced reduced operation time together with the advantage of retroperitoneal access.

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.