Impact of intraoperative heparin on laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

Chylous Ascites After Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy: Is Early Surgical Intervention Necessary?

OBJECTIVES

Chylous ascites is a rare complication that may occur after living donor nephrectomy. The continuous loss of lymphatics, which carries a high risk of morbidity, may ensue in possible immunodeficiency and protein-calorie malnutrition. Here, we presented patients who developed chylous ascites after robotassisted living donor nephrectomy and reviewed the current literature of therapeutic strategies for chylous ascites.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We reviewed the medical records of 424 laparoscopic living donor nephrectomies performed at a single transplant center; among these, we studied the records of 3 patients who developed chylous ascites following robot-assisted living donor nephrectomy.

RESULTS

Among 438 living donor nephrectomies, 359 (81.9%) were laparoscopic and 77 (18.1%) were by robotic assistance. In the 3 cases highlighted in our study, patient 1 did not respond to conservative therapy, which consisted of diet optimization, total parenteral nutrition, and octreotide (somatostatin). Patient 1 subsequently underwent robotic-assisted laparoscopy with suture ligation and clipping of leaking lymphatic vessels, allowing the chylous ascites to subside. Patient 2 similarly did not respond to conservative treatment and developed ascites. Despite initial improvement after wound interrogation and drainage, patient 2 had continued symptoms, resulting in diagnostic laparoscopy and repair of leaky channels leading to the cisterna chyli. Patient 3 developed chylous ascites 4 weeks postoperatively and received ultrasonographic-guided paracentesis by interventional radiology, with results showing an aspirate consistent with chyle. The patient's diet was optimized, allowing for initial improvement and eventual return to normal diet.

CONCLUSIONS

Our case series and literature review demonstrate the importance of early surgical intervention after failed conservative management for resolution of chylous ascites in patients after robotassisted donor laparoscopic nephrectomy.

Aggravation of fibrin deposition and microthrombus formation within the graft during kidney transplantation

In kidney transplantation, microthrombi and fibrin deposition may lead to local perfusion disorders and subsequently poor initial graft function. Microthrombi are often regarded as donor-derived. However, the incidence, time of development, and potential difference between living donor kidneys (LDK) and deceased donor kidneys(DDK), remains unclear. Two open-needle biopsies, taken at preimplantation and after reperfusion, were obtained from 17 LDK and 28 DDK transplanted between 2005 and 2008. Paraffin-embedded sections were immunohistochemically stained with anti-fibrinogen antibody. Fibrin deposition intensity in peritubular capillaries(PTC) and glomeruli was categorized as negative, weak, moderate or strong and the number of microthrombi/mm² was quantified. Reperfusion biopsies showed more fibrin deposition (20% to 100% moderate/strong, p < 0.001) and more microthrombi/mm² (0.97 ± 1.12 vs. 0.28 ± 0.53, p < 0.01) than preimplantation biopsies. In addition, more microthrombi/mm² (0.38 ± 0.61 vs. 0.09 ± 0.22, p = 0.02) and stronger fibrin intensity in glomeruli (28% vs. 0%, p < 0.01) and PTC (14% vs. 0%, p = 0.02) were observed in preimplantation DDK than LDK biopsies. After reperfusion, microthrombi/mm² were comparable (p = 0.23) for LDK (0.09 ± 0.22 to 0.76 ± 0.49, p = 0.03) and DDK (0.38 ± 0.61 to 0.90 ± 1.11, p = 0.07). Upon reperfusion, there is an aggravation of microthrombus formation and fibrin deposition within the graft. The prominent increase of microthrombi in LDK indicates that they are not merely donor-derived.

Chylous Ascites: Complication of Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy. Case Report and Review of Literature

BACKGROUND

Chylous ascites (CA) is an extremely rare complication after laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN). It can increase the hospital stay, morbidity in postoperative period and thus negating the benefits of laparoscopic surgery. Most of the cases were managed conservatively, but surgical intervention may be occasionally required. This report describes the importance of accurate localization of the leaking chyle duct and its repair by endosuturing in a renal donor not responding to conservative treatment.

METHODS

A comprehensive review of literature regarding this rare complication after LDN was performed with Pubmed/Medline and Google Scholar using "chyle," "complications," and "laparoscopic donor nephrectomy" as keywords. The demographic profile and management of patients is discussed in detail. The various surgical modalities used to manage these patients are described.

RESULTS

Fifty-four cases of chyle leak/ascites have been reported after LDN in literature to date. Around 77% donors with CA could be successfully managed conservatively with dietary measures and total parenteral nutrition. Surgical intervention was required in nearly 23% donors ranging from clip application, use of argon coagulation, endosuturing with application of glue after 36.1 ± 19.07 days of failed conservative treatment. Donors with massive ascites or requiring frequent large-volume paracentesis on conservative treatment are likely to require surgical therapy. The present case was successfully managed with laparoscopic endosuturing and has no recurrence at 6 month follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Chylous ascites is a rare complication after donor nephrectomy in experienced centers. Although conservative management remains the first line of treatment, early surgical treatment shall be undertaken in cases of massive ascites.

A Proposed Classification System and Therapeutic Strategy for Chyle Leak After Laparoscopic Living-Donor Nephrectomy: A Single-Center Experience and Review of the Literature

OBJECTIVES

Chyle leak or chylous ascites remains a rare complication after laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy. Its cause and management have not been well elucidated in the literature. Thus, the aim of this study was to review the incidence of chyle leak/chylous ascites after laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy in our institute and in the literature to propose a classification system with its associated treatment strategy.

MATERILAS AND METHODS

In this retrospective review of laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy patients from January 2005 to April 2016, we identified patients with chyle leak/chylous ascites along with the care performed. A proposed classification system based on our experience and literature is described.

RESULTS

Chylous leak developed in 4 donors (2.25%). Of the 4 donors, 3 were treated nonoperatively with diet modification and subcutaneous octreotide injection. One patient required surgical intervention after not responding to second-line therapy with total parenteral nutrition.

CONCLUSIONS

Chyle leak/chylous ascites after laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy is rare, but a delayed diagnosis may lead to morbidity secondary to malnutrition and immunosuppression. Meticulous surgical dissection is essential to seal the lymphatic tubes during laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy. The proposed classification system provides a practical and tailored guide to management based on the drainage volume of chyle leak and a guide to the earlier identification of refractory cases.

Chylous ascites in laparoscopic renal surgery: Where do we stand?

Postoperative chylous ascites, which is caused by the disruption of lymphatic channels and persistent lymphatic leakage, was a rare complication in the urologic field before laparoscopic surgery was introduced. Now that laparoscopic urologic surgery, especially laparoscopic nephrectomy, is widely performed, chylous ascites as a complication of laparoscopic renal surgery has been reported more frequently. With these accumulated experiences and data comes knowledge about the proper diagnosis and management of chylous ascites, although there is still some debate regarding the correct protocol for diagnosis and management. Therefore, we performed a systematic review of the current literature regarding the etiology, incidence, diagnosis, management, and prognosis of chylous ascites after laparoscopic renal surgery, as well as strategies used to prevent it, and discuss current perspectives on overcoming this complication in the laparoscopic age.

Recent advancements in and views on the donor operation in living donor liver transplantation: a single-center study of 886 patients over 13 years

Donor safety remains an important concern in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). In the present study, we assessed recent advancements in the donor operation for LDLT through our experience with this procedure. A total of 886 donor hepatectomies performed between January 1999 and December 2012 were analyzed. Three chronological periods were investigated: the initial period (1999-2004, n = 239), the period in which the right liver with middle hepatic vein reconstruction was primarily used (2005-2010, n = 422), and the period in which the right liver with a standardized protocol, including a preoperative donor diet program, an evaluation of steatosis with magnetic resonance spectroscopy, no systemic heparin administration or central venous pressure monitoring, exact midplane dissection, and incremental application of minimal incisions, was exclusively used (2011-2012, n = 225). The proportion of patients > 50 years old increased (2.5% versus 4.7% versus 8.9%), whereas the proportion of patients with a remnant liver volume ≤ 30% (6.5% versus 13.9% versus 6.3%) and with macrosteatosis ≥ 10% (7.9% versus 11.1% versus 4.4%) decreased throughout the periods. The operative time (292.7 versus 290.0 versus 272.8 minutes), hospital stay (12.4 versus 11.2 versus 8.5 days), and overall morbidity rate (26.4% versus 13.3% versus 5.8%), including major complications (>grade 3; 1.7% versus 1.9% versus 0.9%) and biliary complications (7.9% versus 5.0% versus 0.9%), were markedly reduced in the most recent period. No intraoperative transfusion was required. No cases of irreversible disability or mortality were noted. In conclusion, the quality of the donor operation has recently been standardized through a large volume of experience, and the operation has been proven to have minimal risk. However, a constant evaluation of our experience is critical for remaining prepared for any unavoidable crisis.

Is Systemic heparinization necessary during living donor hepatectomy?

Systemic heparinization has traditionally been performed during living donor hepatectomy (LDH) at most transplant centers because of the possibility of graft vascular thrombosis. However, no consensus on the use of systemic heparinization during LDH has yet emerged. The aims of the present study were to compare donor and recipient outcomes with reference to systemic heparinization and to determine whether or not systemic heparin needs to be administered to living donors. Via a retrospective review, we analyzed the outcomes of 137 LDHs performed at our institution from January 2011 to October 2013; 79 donors received systemic heparinization (group I), whereas 58 did not, but the liver graft was flushed with a heparinized perfusate (group II). Patient demographics, intraoperative parameters, laboratory data, postoperative complications, and survival rates were compared between the 2 groups. The overall complication rates did not differ significantly between the 2 groups, but postoperative bleeding requiring red blood cell transfusions occurred more frequently in group I versus group II (7.6% versus 0.0%, P = 0.03). The incidences of graft vascular thrombosis were similar in the 2 groups, and no graft loss caused by vascular thrombosis was evident during the early postoperative period. Moreover, no difference in either posttransplant graft function or survival was apparent between the 2 groups. The rates of decreases in donor hemoglobin, hematocrit, and platelet count levels during the early postoperative period were significantly higher in group I versus group II. In conclusion, the omission of systemic heparinization during LDH is both feasible and safe, with no adverse effects on donor or recipient outcomes.

Evolution of laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: a single-center experience with 1510 cases over 14 years

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated the outcomes of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) and proposed modifications for kidney donation surgery. From February 1997 to February 2011, 1510 LDNs were performed.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Surgical modifications included a modified open access technique for entry into the abdominal cavity, using vascular clips for safe and cost-effective control of the renal pedicle, control of the lumbar veins, and adrenal vein using bipolar cautery instead of clips, and leaving the gonadal vein intact with the ureter. Kidneys were extracted by hand through a Pfannenstiel incision. Heparin was not used after the first 300 cases to prevent potential hemorrhagic complications.

RESULTS

Although three major vascular injuries occurred using the closed access method that were managed successfully, no access-related complications occurred using the modified open access technique. Clip failure did not happen in any cases. Patient and graft survival at 1 year post-transplantation were 96.5% and 95.5%, respectively, and at 5 years post-transplantation were 95.3% and 89.5%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The proposed surgical modifications are based on 14 years of experience and 1510 cases, and make LDN simple, safe, and cost-effective. The excellent recipient and graft outcomes with minimal morbidity obtained further confirm that LDN can be considered as the gold standard for kidney donation surgery.

Low-dose heparin therapy during living donor right hepatectomy is associated with few side effects and does not increase vascular thrombosis in liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

At many centers, various heparin doses have been administrated systemically during living donor partial hepatectomy in an effort to minimize the potential for graft vascular thrombosis, which could lead to delayed graft function. However, there is no consensus regarding the advisability of heparin administration during living donor hepatectomy for liver transplantation.

METHODS

We prospectively enrolled 270 donors between 2005 and 2011 to investigate donor and recipient outcomes between a low dose (25 IU/kg) and a conventional dose of heparin (50 IU/kg).

RESULTS

The low-dose heparin group did not show an increased incidence of vascular thrombosis: the rates of hepatic artery and portal vein thromboses were not significantly different between the two groups (P = .935 and P = .158, respectively). In addition, injection of low-dose heparin reduced donor complications with significant differences in postoperative hospital stay (P < .001), donor operative time (P < .001), hemoglobin/hematocrit decrease (P = .05/P = .02) and hemorrhagic complications (P = .004).

CONCLUSIONS

Administration of low-dose heparin during living donor hepatectomy can be used without worsening vascular thrombosis or donor complications.

Chylous ascites after laparoscopic hand-assisted donor nephrectomy: Is it specific for the left-side?

We describe a case-report of a chylous ascites after laparoscopic donor nephrectomy, summarize the current literature, and hypothesize on the etiology of this complication.

Chyle Leak following Open Donor Nephrectomy: A Rare Complication-A Case Report

Introduction. Donor workup in renal transplantation is extensive. Despite this, chyle leakage following donor nephrectomy, a rare complication, has been reported in the literature. We encountered two cases of chyle leak in kidney donors in our series of open donor nephrectomies. Summary of Cases. After complete workup, standard open retroperitoneal donor nephrectomy with drain placement was performed in 684 living renal donors. We encountered chyle leak in two cases. The first case was a 33-year-old female who underwent an otherwise uneventful left donor nephrectomy but continued to have high drain output (upto 300–400 mL/24 hrs) in the postoperative period. The drain fluid was milky, raising the suspicion of chyle which was confirmed on biochemical analysis. The second case was a 42-year-old female with a similar case history. Both were managed conservatively with low-fat diet. The leak subsided spontaneously in three weeks and one week in the first and second patients, respectively. The drain was removed, and the patients remained symptom-free on followup. Conclusions. Both of our cases of chyle leak following open donor nephrectomy were managed successfully with conservative management. The management options and the experience of other centers are reviewed and discussed.

Chylous ascites requiring surgical intervention after donor nephrectomy: case series and single center experience

Chylous ascites as a result of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) is a rare complication that carries significant morbidity, including severe protein-calorie malnutrition and an associated immunocompromised state. We report a patient who underwent hand-assisted left LDN and subsequently developed chylous ascites. He failed conservative therapy including low-fat diet with medium-chain triglycerides (LFD/MCT) and oral protein supplementation as well as strict NPO status with intravenous (IV) total parenteral nutrition (TPN) and subcutaneous (SQ) somatostatin analogue administration. Laparoscopic re-exploration and intracorporeal suture ligation and clipping of leaking lymph channels successfully sealed the chyle leak. We review the literature to date including diagnosis, incidence, management options, psychosocial aspects and clinical outcomes of chylous ascites after LDN.

Chylous ascites requiring surgical intervention after donor nephrectomy: case series and single center experience

Chylous ascites as a result of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) is a rare complication that carries significant morbidity, including severe protein-calorie malnutrition and an associated immunocompromised state. We report a patient who underwent hand-assisted left LDN and subsequently developed chylous ascites. He failed conservative therapy including low-fat diet with medium-chain triglycerides (LFD/MCT) and oral protein supplementation as well as strict NPO status with intravenous (IV) total parenteral nutrition (TPN) and subcutaneous (SQ) somatostatin analogue administration. Laparoscopic re-exploration and intracorporeal suture ligation and clipping of leaking lymph channels successfully sealed the chyle leak. We review the literature to date including diagnosis, incidence, management options, psychosocial aspects and clinical outcomes of chylous ascites after LDN.

[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.

Current concepts in transplant surgery: laparoscopic living donor of the kidney

INTRODUCTION

Living donor kidney transplantation has emerged as an excellent alternative to cadaveric donation since, more than 50 years ago, the first live donor nephrectomy was successfully performed.

OBJECTIVE

The basic idea of introducing laparoscopy in live donor nephrectomy was to obtain a potential reduction in incision-related morbidity with reduced pain and faster reconvalescence while providing at least the same level of operative security. This paper is focusing on technical aspects, outcome, results, and possible current concerns and advantages of laparoscopic living-related donor nephrectomy.

CONCLUSION

According to our results and the results available in the literature, laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy is safe when performed with sufficient experience. Postoperative pain is less and recovery is significantly faster.

Living related donor nephrectomy in transfusion refusing donors

Many transplant programs are averse to evaluate potential kidney donors with preferences against accepting human blood products. We examined the donor and graft outcomes between our transfusion-consenting (TC) and transfusion-refusing (TR) live kidney donors to determine whether a functional or survival disadvantage resulted from the disallowance of blood product transfusion during live donor (LD) nephrectomy. From July, 1999 to August, 2005, 82 live donor nephrectomies were performed, eight of who were TR donors (10%). Blood conservation techniques were utilized in TR donors. Demographics, surgical and functional outcomes, admission and discharge hematocrit, and creatinine were compared between TC and TR donors. No donor mortalities occurred. Two TC donors received blood transfusions (2.7%), and each study group experienced a single, <1-year graft loss. Intra-operative blood losses were significantly less in TR donors (298 +/- 412 vs. 121 +/- 91 ml, P < 0.03). No differences were noted between donor demographics, intra-operative events, and graft and patient survival. Successful donor nephrectomy from TR patients has the potential to expand the kidney allograft pool to include the TR donor population. Precautionary blood conservation methods allow the informed and consenting TR individual to donate a kidney with acceptable risk and without compromise to donor or graft outcomes.

[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.