Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a plea for the right-sided approach. Transplantation. 2009;87:745-750. [PMID: 19295321 DOI: 10.1097/tp.0b013e318198a3a6]

Right and left living donor nephrectomy and operative approach: A systematic review and meta-analysis of donor and recipient outcomes

INTRODUCTION

The left kidney is preferable in living donor nephrectomy (LDN). We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of right versus left LDN in both donor and recipients. A subgroup analysis of outcomes based on operative approach was also performed.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed as per PRISMA guidelines. Outcomes of interest were extracted from included studies and analysed.

RESULTS

There were 31 studies included with 79,912 transplants. Left LDN was performed in 84.1 % of cases and right LDN in 15.9 %. Right LDN was associated with reduced EBL (P = 0.010), intra-operative complications (P = 0.030) and operative time (P = 0.006), but higher rates of conversion to open surgery (1.4 % vs 0.9 %). However, right living donor renal transplantation (LDRT) had higher rates of delayed graft function (5.4 % vs 4.2 %, P < 0.0001) and graft loss (2.6 % vs 1.1 %, P < 0.0001). Graft survival was reduced in right LDRT at 3 years (92.0 % vs 94.2 %, P = 0.001) but comparable to left LDRT at 1- and 5-years. Otherwise, donor and recipient peri-operative outcomes and serum creatinine levels were comparable in both groups. Hand-assisted LDN was associated with shorter warm ischaemia time (P < 0.0001) but longer length of stay (LOS) than laparoscopic LDN and robotic-assisted LDN (P < 0.0001). RA-LDN was associated with less EBL and shorter LOS (both P < 0.0001) while patients who underwent L-LDN had a lower mean serum creatinine (SCr) level on discharge (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Right LDRT has higher rates of delayed graft function and graft loss compared to left LDRT. Minimally-invasive surgical approaches potentially offer improved outcomes but further large-scale randomised controlled trials studies are required to confirm this finding.

Risk aversion in the use of complex kidneys in paired exchange programs: Opportunities for even more transplants?

This retrospective review of the largest United States kidney exchange reports characteristics, utilization, and recipient outcomes of kidneys with simple compared to complex anatomy and extrapolates reluctance to accept these kidneys. Of 3105 transplants performed, only 12.8% were right kidneys and 23.1% had multiple renal arteries. 59.3% of centers used fewer right kidneys than expected and 12.1% transplanted zero right kidneys or kidneys with more than 1 artery. Five centers transplanted a third of these kidneys (35.8% of right kidneys and 36.7% of kidneys with multiple renal arteries). 22.5% and 25.5% of centers currently will not entertain a match offer for a left or right kidney with more than one artery, respectively. There were no significant differences in all-cause graft failure or death-censored graft loss for kidneys with multiple arteries, and a very small increased risk of graft failure for right kidneys versus left of limited clinical relevance for most recipients. Kidneys with complex anatomy can be used with excellent outcomes at many centers. Variation in use (lack of demand) for these kidneys reduces the number of transplants, so systems to facilitate use could increase demand. We cannot know how many donors are turned away because perceived demand is limited.

Comparing outcomes in right versus left kidney transplantation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Transplantation of right kidneys can pose technical challenges due to the short right renal vein. Whether this results in inferior outcomes remains controversial.

METHOD

Healthcare Database Advanced Search (HDAS) was used to identify relevant studies. Two authors independently reviewed each study. Statistical analyses were performed using random effects models and results expressed as HR or relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals. Subgroup analyses were performed in kidneys from deceased donors (DD) and living donors (LD).

RESULTS

A total of 35 studies (257,429 participants) were identified. Both deceased and living donor right kidneys were at increased risk of delayed graft function (DGF; RR = 1.12[1.06-1.18] and RR = 1.33[1.21-1.46] respectively; both p < .0001). In absolute terms, for each 100 kidney pairs of DD kidneys transplanted there are 2.72 (1.67-3.78, p < .00001) excess episodes of DGF in right kidneys. Graft thromboses and graft loss due to technical failure was also significantly more likely in right kidneys, in both DD and LD settings. There was no evidence that laterality alters long term graft survival in LD or DD.

CONCLUSION

Right kidneys have inferior early outcomes, with higher rates of DGF, technical failure and graft thrombosis. However, these differences are small in absolute terms, and long-term graft survival is equivalent.

Hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy offers more liberal use of right kidneys: lessons learned from 565 cases - a retrospective single-center study

The introduction of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy caused a shift toward' left donor nephrectomy. Some centers report a significantly low rate of endoscopic right donor nephrectomy. Hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy (HARP-DN) was introduced as a novel surgical technique, which aims to avoid intra-abdominal complications. It was also reported to provide technical advantages for right-sided DN. In this retrospective single-center study, we evaluated the impact of HARP-DN technique on utilization of right-sided DNs. After the implementation of HARP-DN on February 2009, a total of 565 DNs were performed until December 2015. The introduction of HARP-DN technique resulted in an immediate increase in the utilization of right kidneys from 6.1% to an average of 19.6% annually. The donors 'outcome was similar to the left-sided and right-sided DN groups, excluding the increased incidence of incisional hernias in left kidney donors. None of the donors developed intra-abdominal complications. In conclusion, the implementation of HARP technique significantly increased the use of right-sided DNs, which enables a more liberal use of donors in LDKT.

Right Kidney Mini-Invasive Living Donor Nephrectomy: A Safe and Efficient Alternative

INTRODUCTION

Right kidney living donor transplantation is considered more difficult and associated with more complications. The objective was to evaluate donor safety and graft function of right hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN).

METHODS

A total of 270 consecutive HALDN procedures have been performed in our institution up to April 2017. We retrospectively compared the outcomes of right-sided nephrectomy (R-HALDN) to left-sided nephrectomy (L-HALDN) to evaluate donor safety and graft function of R-HALDN.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven right kidneys were removed for functional asymmetry in favour of left kidney (35/67) or left kidney multiple arteries (28/67). Among the donors, neither conversion to open surgery nor preoperative blood transfusion was necessary. There was no significant difference in operative time, compared to L-HALDN group (170 ± 37 min vs. 171 ± 32 min; p value = 0.182). Warm ischaemia time was significantly longer for R-HALDN (4.0 ± 1.6 min vs. 3.0 ± 1.7 min; p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in terms of post-operative complications and serum Cr levels. Among the recipients, there were no graft venous thrombosis. There was no significant difference in delayed graft function (3 for R-HALDN group and 8 for L-HALDN group; p value = 0.847), serum Cr levels, and graft survival.

CONCLUSION

R-HALDN is a safe procedure for kidney donors, with excellent graft function for the recipients, compared to L-HALDN.

Safety and Efficacy of Right Retroperitoneal Laparoscopic Live Donor Nephrectomy: A Retrospective Single-Center Study

Background

The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of right retroperitoneal laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (LDN) in 81 cases of living-related renal transplant.

Material/Methods

We retrospectively reviewed all living-related donors who underwent right retroperitoneoscopic living donor nephrectomy between June 2010 and December 2017 at the First Hospital of Jilin University and their corresponding recipients. Demographic and clinical data were collected from the hospital’s electronic clinical data system. Data on preoperative renal retention parameters, operative time, and donor kidney warm ischemia time, the trimmed length of the renal artery and vein of donor kidney, and the time to extubation were recorded. Complications in both donors and recipients were recorded.

Results

We included 81 donors who underwent successful right-sided retroperitoneoscopic LDN, with 31 males and 50 females and a mean age of 47.1 years (range 21–63 years). There was no intraoperative conversion to open donor nephrectomy. The mean operative time was 120.68±29.8 min. The mean warm ischemic time was 49.26±3.86 s. The estimate blood loss was 54.32 mL (range 50–400 mL). The median length of hospital stay was 7 days (range 4–13 days). There was neither intraoperative complication such as hemorrhage or lymph fistula nor kidney graft injury. There was no graft renal vein thrombosis and ureteral stricture or other complications. No graft rejection occurred.

Conclusions

Right retroperitoneal laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy is safe and effective for renal transplant in living-related renal transplant by laparoscopic excision and extraction of the right kidney with vena cava flap.

Laparoscopic living donor right nephrectomy: Assessment of outcome and association of BMI to length of right renal vein

AIMS

The aim of this study was to describe outcomes of laparoscopic living donor right nephrectomy (LLDRN) and study factors affecting the length of right renal vein from the donors.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This study was conducted in 60 donors (48 males and 12 females) from January 2016 to December 2017. We performed a retrospective review of consecutive patients who underwent transperitoneal right laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy at our unit.

RESULTS

LLDRN was successfully performed in all subjects by the same surgeons. Among 60 cases, 47 donors had single renal artery and vein, 2 cases had one artery and 2 veins, and 5 donors had 2 arteries and one vein, and the rest had 2-3 arteries with 1-3 veins. Operative time was 142.60±33.73min. Warm ischemic time was 2.64±0.76min. The mean hospital stay was 6.69±0.63 days. The median length of right renal vein was 1.92±0.41cm. All transplanted kidneys showed immediate function. No graft losses were recorded. Almost no gender differences were found in study variables except BMI and warm ischemic time, that was higher BMI but shorter warm ischemic time in female versus male donors. Further analysis showed a negative correlation between BMI and right renal vein (r=-0.282, P<0.05), but a positive correlation between operative time and estimate blood loss (r=0.37, P<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

LLDRN is a feasible safe procedure, less traumatic approach, and provides good outcomes kidney for recipients. Notably, in the study group the higher BMI was associated with resulting more difficult LLDRN and kidney transplantation.

Feasibility and safety of laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy in case of right kidney and multiple-renal artery kidney: a systematic review of the literature

PURPOSE

To access the current status of the security and feasibility of right kidney (RK) and multiple-renal artery (MRA) laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy (LLDN) which are more challenging compared to left kidney (LK) and single renal artery (SRA) because of a shorter renal vein and more complex vascular anatomy.

METHODS

We did a systematic review of the literature according to the PRISMA recommendations, reporting RK or MRA donor nephrectomy performed with a laparoscopic technique compared to LK or SRA kidney LLDN. The identified and analyzed primary outcomes of interest were operating time (OT), warm ischemia time (WIT), rate of conversion and transfusion, donor length of stay (LOS), delayed graft function (DGF) and rate of graft loss (GL).

RESULTS

16 comparative studies (1397 cases) of RK-LLDN and 12 comparative studies including 15 series (993 cases) of MRA-LLDN were selected. For RK-LLDN review, conversion rate was 0.8% and blood transfusion rate 0.2%, only one case of graft venous thrombosis was reported, OT was shorter in four studies and there was no any difference of DGF and GL rate compared to LK-LLDN. For MRA-LLDN review, conversion rate was 1.3% and blood transfusion rate 1.1%, OT and WIT were longer compared to SRA-LLDN, there were more ureteral complications in two studies, and no difference in terms of vascular complications and graft loss rate.

CONCLUSION

RK-LLDN and MRA-LLDN would be similar to LK-LLDN and SRA-LLDN in terms of feasibility and safety for the donor as well as graft function results for RK-LLDN.

3D Endoscopic Donor Nephrectomy Versus Robot-assisted Donor Nephrectomy: A Detailed Comparison of 2 Prospective Cohorts

BACKGROUND

There are 2 endoscopic surgical techniques that implement 3-dimensional (3D) vision to overcome visual misperception: 3D endoscopy and the da Vinci surgical system. 3D endoscopy has several advantages, such as the presence of tactile feedback and easy implementation, at lower costs. We aimed to assess whether 3D endoscopy could be an alternative to the robot during living donor nephrectomy.

METHODS

Between April 2015 and April 2016, we prospectively collected data on 40 patients undergoing 3D endoscopic living donor nephrectomies in 1 center, performed by a da Vinci-certified surgeon. Data on donors' perioperative results and recipient and graft survival were collected. These data were compared to 40 robot-assisted donor nephrectomies performed in the same center (between January 2012 and May 2014).

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics for both groups were comparable. Intraoperative results showed a significantly shorter median skin-to-skin time of 138.5 minutes (125.8-163.8) versus 169.0 (141.5-209.8) minutes in favor of the 3D group (P = 0.001). Warm ischemia time (P = 0.003) and hilar phase for both single (1 artery and vein) and multiple anatomies (≥1 artery and/or vein [P = 0.002 and P = 0.010, respectively]) were also significantly reduced in favor of the 3D group, with a flat learning curve. Follow-up demonstrated no readmissions nor significant differences for donors, recipients, and graft survival.

CONCLUSIONS

3D endoscopy may be a good alternative to robot-assisted donor nephrectomy because morbidity, graft, and recipient survival were comparable, with a significantly shorter median skin-to-skin time, warm ischemia time, and hilar dissection phase. Furthermore, implementation was easy and at lower costs, whereas tactile feedback was preserved.

Open Management of the Renal Vein Is a Safe Modification in Right-Sided Laparoscopic Living Donor Nephrectomy to Maximize Graft Vein Length

BACKGROUND

The primary objective in living donor kidney transplantation is donor safety. In laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy, most centers prefer the left kidney for donation given the shorter renal vein, higher rate of thromboses, and more difficult surgical procedure for right kidney retrieval. The goal of this study was to demonstrate the feasibility of a hybrid technique using a Satinsky clamp in right-sided living donor nephrectomy to obtain maximal renal vein and to compare the outcome with standard left-sided laparoscopic donor nephrectomies.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Between 2005 and 2013, 77 patients underwent a left (group L) and 54 a right (group R) living donor nephrectomy. In group R, after laparoscopic dissection and mobilization of the right kidney, two 12-mm trocar incisions in the right upper quadrant were connected in a 5-7 cm subcostal incision. The caval vein was partially clamped under direct vision prior to dissection of the renal vein. The venotomy was then closed with a running 4-0 Prolene suture. The two groups were compared with regard to surgical complications, graft function, and graft survival.

RESULTS

Using this technique, no significant difference with regard to complications or graft function was observed. Serum creatinine at discharge in donor group L was 1.23 (±0.43) mg/dL and in donor group R 1.21 (±0.37) mg/dL (P = .71). Graft survival at one year was 100% in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Open management of the renal vein is a safe alternative in laparoscopic right-sided donor nephrectomy and ensures maximal length of the vein.

KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors

The 2017 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors is intended to assist medical professionals who evaluate living kidney donor candidates and provide care before, during and after donation. The guideline development process followed the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach and guideline recommendations are based on systematic reviews of relevant studies that included critical appraisal of the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations. However, many recommendations, for which there was no evidence or no systematic search for evidence was undertaken by the Evidence Review Team, were issued as ungraded expert opinion recommendations. The guideline work group concluded that a comprehensive approach to risk assessment should replace decisions based on assessments of single risk factors in isolation. Original data analyses were undertaken to produce a "proof-in-concept" risk-prediction model for kidney failure to support a framework for quantitative risk assessment in the donor candidate evaluation and defensible shared decision making. This framework is grounded in the simultaneous consideration of each candidate's profile of demographic and health characteristics. The processes and framework for the donor candidate evaluation are presented, along with recommendations for optimal care before, during, and after donation. Limitations of the evidence are discussed, especially regarding the lack of definitive prospective studies and clinical outcome trials. Suggestions for future research, including the need for continued refinement of long-term risk prediction and novel approaches to estimating donation-attributable risks, are also provided.In citing this document, the following format should be used: Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Living Kidney Donor Work Group. KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors. Transplantation. 2017;101(Suppl 8S):S1-S109.

Selection Criteria for Kidney Laterality in Retroperitoneoscopic Living Donor Nephrectomy and the Usefulness of Pretransplant Intervention

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the selection criteria for kidney laterality and the usefulness of pretransplant intervention in living donor nephrectomy.

METHODS

We compared conventional and revised criteria. The conventional criteria were that left kidneys were chosen in preference and provided the kidney with the fewest structural abnormalities and lowest functional decline and that most renal arteries remained in the donor. From April 2013, we allowed the use of left kidneys with double renal arteries. Patient characteristics and surgical outcomes were retrospectively compared between right and left retroperitoneoscopic living donor nephrectomies.

RESULTS

We compared data for 30 right kidney and 222 left kidney nephrectomies. Right kidneys were selected because of multiple renal arteries (n = 18), structural abnormalities (n = 10) of the left kidney, or functional decline (n = 2) of the right kidney. Right retroperitoneoscopic nephrectomies were associated with significantly longer operating times (267 minutes vs 241 minutes), larger blood losses (240 g vs 55 g), and higher open conversion rates (10% vs 0.9%). Pretransplant intervention was necessary for structural abnormalities in right kidneys, but the amended selection criteria resulted in fewer right nephrectomies. Pretransplant intervention was still necessary by ex vivo arterial anastomosis for multiple left renal arteries, which increased the total ischemia time (94 minutes vs 64 minutes); however, post-transplantation renal function was not significantly different.

CONCLUSIONS

Pretransplant intervention was beneficial both for repairing structural abnormalities and for reducing the difficulties of retroperitoneoscopic living donor nephrectomy.

Laparoscopic vs open donor nephrectomy: Lessons learnt from single academic center experience

AIM

To compare laparoscopic and open living donor nephrectomy, based on the results from a single center during a decade.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of all living donor nephrectomies performed at the Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, between 1/1998 - 12/2009. Overall there were 490 living donors, with 279 undergoing laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy (LLDN) and 211 undergoing open donor nephrectomy (OLDN). Demographic data, operating room time, the effect of the learning curve, the number of conversions from laparoscopic to open surgery, donor preoperative glomerular filtration rate and creatinine (Cr), donor and recipient postoperative Cr, delayed graft function and donor complications were analyzed. Statistical analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Overall there was no statistically significant difference between the LLDN and the OLDN groups regarding operating time, donor preoperative renal function, donor and recipient postoperative kidney function, delayed graft function or the incidence of major complications. When the last 100 laparoscopic cases were analyzed, there was a statistically significant difference regarding operating time in favor of the LLDN, pointing out the importance of the learning curve. Furthermore, another significant difference between the two groups was the decreased length of stay for the LLDN (2.87 d for LLDN vs 3.6 d for OLDN).

CONCLUSION

Recognizing the importance of the learning curve, this paper provides evidence that LLDN has a safety profile comparable to OLDN and decreased length of stay for the donor.

Is the Reluctance for the Implantation of Right Donor Kidneys Justified?

Background

The lengths of right renal veins are shorter when compared to their left counterparts. Since the implantation of kidneys with short renal veins is considered more challenging, many surgeons prefer left kidneys for transplantation. Therefore, our hypothesis is that the implantation of right kidneys from living and deceased donors is associated with more technical graft failures as compared to left kidneys.

Methods

Two consecutive cohorts of adult renal allograft recipients of living (n = 4.372) and deceased (n = 5.346) donor kidneys between January 1, 2000 and January 1, 2013 were analyzed. Data were obtained from the prospectively maintained electronic database of the Dutch Organ Transplant Registry. Technical graft failure was defined as failure of the renal allograft within 10 days after renal transplantation without signs of acute rejection.

Results

In the living donor kidney transplantation cohort, the implantation of right donor kidneys was associated with a higher incidence of technical graft failure (multivariate analysis p = 0.03). For recipients of deceased donor kidneys, the implantation of right kidneys was not significantly associated with technique-related graft failure (multivariate analysis p = 0.16).

Conclusions

Our data show that the implantation of right kidneys from living donors is associated with a higher incidence of technique-related graft failure as compared to left kidneys.

Risk factors for perioperative complications in hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

Living donor kidney transplant is the preferred treatment for end-stage renal disease; however, the shortage of kidney donors remains a big problem. One of the major reasons for the shortage of living donors is the risk of potentially serious surgical complications of a procedure in which the donor has no personal medical benefit. Therefore it is important to understand the risk factors for perioperative complications associated with donor nephrectomy. Hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is the preferred approach for kidney procurement in many medical centers. This review gives an overview of the risk factors in donor nephrectomy and more specifically in hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.

Transperitoneal laparoscopic left versus right live donor nephrectomy: Comparison of outcomes

Introduction:

Although laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) is being performed at many centers, there are reservations on the routine use of laparoscopy for harvesting the right kidney due to a perception of technical complexity and increased incidence of allograft failure, renal vein thrombosis and the need for more back-table reconstruction along with increased operative time.

Materials and Methods:

We performed a prospective non-randomized comparison of transperitoneal laparoscopic left donor nephrectomy (LLDN) with laparoscopic right donor nephrectomy (RLDN) from August 2008 to May 2013. The operative time, warm ischemia time, intraoperative events, blood loss and post-operative parameters were recorded. The renal recipient parameters, including post-operative creatinine, episodes of acute tubular necrosis (ATN)  and delayed graft function were also recorded.

Results:

A total of 188 LDN were performed between August 2008 and May 2013, including 164 LLDN and 24 RLDN. The demographic characteristics between the two groups were comparable. The operative duration was in favor of the right donor group, while warm ischemia time, estimated blood loss and mean length of hospital stay were similar between the two groups. Overall renal functional outcomes were comparable between the two donor groups, while the recipient outcomes including creatinine at discharge were also comparable.

Conclusions:

RLDN has a safety profile comparable with LLDN, even in those with complex vascular anatomy, and can be successfully performed by the transperitoneal route with no added morbidity. RLDN requires lesser operative time with comparable morbidity.

Can right-sided hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy be advocated above standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a randomized pilot study

Endoscopic techniques have contributed to early recovery and increased quality of life (QOL) of live kidney donors. However, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) may have its limitations, and hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy (HARP) has been introduced, mainly as a potentially safer alternative. In a randomized fashion, we explored the feasibility and potential benefits of HARP for right-sided donor nephrectomy in a referral center with longstanding expertise on the standard laparoscopic approach. Forty donors were randomly assigned to either LDN or HARP. Primary outcome was operating time, and secondary outcomes included QOL, complications, pain, morphine requirement, blood loss, warm ischemia time, and hospital stay. Follow-up time was 1 year. Skin-to-skin time did not significantly differ between both groups (162 vs. 158 min, P = 0.98). As compared to LDN, HARP resulted in a shorter warm ischemia time (2.8 vs. 3.9 min, P < 0.001) and increased blood loss (187 vs. 50 ml, P < 0.001). QOL, complication rate, pain, or hospital stay was not significantly different between the groups. Right-sided HARP is feasible but does not confer clear benefits over standard right-sided LDN yet. Further studies should explore the value of HARP in difficult cases such as the obese donor and the value of HARP for transplantation centers starting a live kidney donation program (Dutch Trial Register number: NTR3096). Nevertheless, HARP is a valuable addition to the surgical armamentarium in live donor surgery.

Impact of right-sided nephrectomy on long-term outcomes in retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy at single center

Objective. To assess the long-term graft survival of right-sided retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy (RPLDN), we compared the outcomes of right- and left-sided RPLDN. Methods. Five hundred and thirty-three patients underwent live donor renal transplantation with allografts procured by RPLDN from July 2001 to August 2010 at our institute. Of these, 24 (4.5%) cases were selected for right-sided RPLDN (R-RPLDN) according to our criteria for donor kidney selection. Study variables included peri- and postoperative clinical data. Results. No significant differences were found in the recipients' postoperative graft function and incidence of slow graft function. Despite significant increased warm ischemic time (WIT: mean 5.9 min versus 4.7 min, P < 0.001) in R-RPLDN compared to that in L-RPLDN, there was no significant difference between the two groups regarding long-term patient and graft survival. The complication rate in R-RPLDN was not significantly different compared to that in L-RPLDN (17% versus 6.5%, P = 0.132). No renal vein thrombosis was experienced in either groups. Conclusions. Although our study was retrospective and there was only a small number of R-RPLDN patients, R-RPLDN could be an option for laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy because of similar results, with the sole exception of WIT, in L-RPLDN, and its excellent long-term graft outcomes.

Robotic-assistance does not enhance standard laparoscopic technique for right-sided donor nephrectomy

Robotic-assistance did not improve outcomes associated with laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in this study.

Objective:

To examine donor and recipient outcomes after right-sided robotic-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (RALDN) compared with standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) and to determine whether robotic-assistance enhances LDN.

Materials & Methods:

From December 2005 to January 2011, 25 patients underwent right-sided LDN or RALDN. An IRB-approved retrospective review was performed of both donor and recipient medical charts. Primary endpoints included both intraoperative and postoperative outcomes.

Results:

Twenty right-sided LDNs and 5 RALDNs were performed during the study period. Neither estimated blood loss (76.4mL vs. 30mL, P=.07) nor operative time (231 min vs. 218 min, P=.61) were significantly different between either group (LDN vs. RALDN). Warm ischemia time for LDN was 2.6 min vs. 3.8 min for RALDN (P=.44). Donor postoperative serum estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFR) were similar (53 vs. 59.6mL/min/1.73m², LDN vs. RALDN, P=.26). For the recipient patients, posttransplant eGFR were similar at 6 months (53.4 vs. 59.8mL/min/1.73m², LDN vs. RALDN, P=.53).

Conclusion:

In this study, robotic-assistance did not improve outcomes associated with LDN. Larger prospective studies are needed to confirm any perceived benefit of RALDN.

[Surgical aspects of living donor nephrectomy]

CONTEXT

Living donor renal transplant surgery has evolved from the classical nephrectomy by lumbotomy to less invasive surgery, the laparoscopic and robotic nephrectomy currently being the most important. It is important to know the available evidence on whether nephrectomy in patients with multiple arteries, right kidney and in obese patients can be performed safely when there is a correct indication.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a review of the different surgical techniques in living donor nephrectomy, adapted to the current surgical evidence and other aspects related to the indication.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic review was made in PubMed (1997-2011). This included previous reviews randomized controlled clinical studies, cohort studies, and meta-analyses of this surgical aspects of living donor nephrectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Currently, there is sufficient evidence to consider living donor laparoscopic nephrectomy as the technique of choice, although the role of hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic technique is still not totally clear. Open surgery techniques using mini-incision are an acceptable alternative for the sites that have not yet implemented laparoscopic surgery. Right kidney nephrectomy, of those cases that present multiple pedicles and in obese donors, is justified in selected cases.

Right-sided transperitoneal hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: is there an issue with the renal vessels?

OBJECTIVE

Short right renal vessels might complicate kidney transplantation, thus causing traction and difficulties during anastomosis. Single-center prospective comparison of right- and left-sided transperitoneal hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN) is presented.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eighty-two living kidney donors underwent HALDN between 2003 and 2008. Right-sided HALDN was performed in 46 living kidney donors. The operative technique of right-sided HALDN was modified to obtain the maximum length of right renal vessels. Outcome data in donors including quality of life as well as graft outcome in recipients were prospectively collected.

RESULTS

All procedures were laparoscopically completed with no conversion. Mean operative time was 127 minutes (vs. 138 minutes in left HALDN, p = 0.08). The mean warm ischemia time was 41 seconds (vs. 39 seconds in left HALDN, p = 0.23). There was no renal artery or vein thrombosis in any of the grafts. Mean blood loss was 81 mL (vs. 92 mL in left HALDN, p = 0.09). Hospital discharge was on an average of 3.6 days postoperative. Delayed graft function occurred in two recipients: one in the left group and the other in the right group. One-year graft survival rate was 95% in the left group versus 96.9% in the right group (p = 0.08). Further, no statistically significant difference in serum levels of creatinine was seen between the groups 1 year after the transplantation.

CONCLUSIONS

Right HALDN is technically safe and feasible and results in convenient extension of right renal vessels to full length with no increased incidence of vascular thrombosis.

Minimally invasive living donor nephrectomy - introduction of hand-assistance

Conventional open living donor nephrectomy (LDN) technique is perceived as a barrier for expanding living donor programmes. Thus, minimal invasive surgery techniques have been advocated to overcome this hurdle. The aim of this study was to evaluate our experience on minimally invasive LDN. During the last decade we have gradually expanded the use of minimally invasive LDN with various techniques; strictly laparoscopic versus hand-assisted, and laparoscopic versus retroperitoneoscopic. This study is based on 305 consecutive minimally invasive LDN's, from 1998 to 2009. By multiple regression analysis, minimally invasive hand-assisted technique was shown to be associated with a significantly lower risk of major complications and intraoperative incidents, as well as reduced warm ischemia and operative time. In our opinion, the introduction of hand-assisted technique is probably the most significant single factor for improved results, although accumulated experience and developments in equipment will contribute. Our experience indicates that learning curves are facilitated by the use of hand-assisted technique. Improvements in surgical outcomes following donor nephrectomy may enhance living donor programmes.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic right donor nephrectomy: safety and feasibility

Purpose

We aimed to prove the safety and feasibility of right-sided hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN).

Materials and Methods

Between May 2006 and May 2009, 16 patients underwent right-sided HALDN at our institution. Of these patients, 15 showed significantly lower renal function in the right kidney than in the left one and 1 had a stone in the right kidney. When the right renal vein was divided, an EndoGIA stapling device was placed on the wall of the inferior vena cava to gain a maximal length of the vein. We evaluated intraoperative and postoperative parameters such as operative time, delivery time, warm ischemic time, estimated blood loss, intraoperative and postoperative complication rates, length of hospital stay, and serum creatinine levels of donors (at the time of discharge) and recipients (4 weeks postoperatively), comparing the right-sided HALDN group (our study) with a left-sided HALDN group (from a previously reported study).

Results

A total of 16 right-sided HALDNs were successfully performed without any complications or open conversion. All of the intraoperative and postoperative parameters were similar between the right-sided HALDN and left-sided HALDN groups. There were no technical problems in the recipients in the anastomosis of the renal vein, and the ureteral anastomoses were also successful.

Conclusions

Right-sided HALDN is safe and technically feasible in a donor, showing favorable graft outcomes. The results of our study suggest that right-sided HALDN may be preferable in patients with significantly lower renal function in the right kidney than in the left one.

Donor complications following laparoscopic compared to hand-assisted living donor nephrectomy: an analysis of the literature

There are two approaches to laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) and hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN). In this study we report the operative statistics and donor complications associated with LDN and HALDN from large-center peer-reviewed publications. Methods. We conducted PubMed and Ovid searches to identify LDN and HALDN outcome studies that were published after 2004. Results. There were 37 peer-reviewed studies, each with more than 150 patients. Cumulatively, over 9000 patients were included in this study. LDN donors experienced a higher rate of intraoperative complications than HALDN donors (5.2% versus. 2.0%, P < .001). Investigators did not report a significant difference in the rate of major postoperative complications between the two groups (LDN 0.5% versus HALDN 0.7%, P = .111). However, conversion to open procedures from vascular injury was reported more frequently in LDN procedures (0.8% versus 0.4%, P = .047). Conclusion. At present there is no evidence to support the use of one laparoscopic approach in preference to the other. There are trends in the data suggesting that intraoperative injuries are more common in LDN while minor postoperative complications are more common in HALDN.

Elective surgical patients as living organ donors: a clinical and ethical innovation

We propose a new model for living organ donation that would invite elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy patients to become volunteer, unrelated living kidney donors. Such donors would be surgical patients first and living donors second, in contrast to the current system, which 'creates' a surgical patient by operating on a healthy individual. Elective surgery patients have accepted the risks of anesthesia and surgery for their own surgical needs but would face additional surgical risks when a donor nephrectomy is combined with their cholecystectomy procedure. Because these two procedures have never been performed together, the precise level of additional risk entailed in such a combined approach is unknown and will require further study. However, considering the large number of elective cholecystectomies performed each year in the United States, if as few as 5% of elective cholecystectomy patients agreed to also serve as living kidney donors, the number of living kidney donors would increase substantially. If this proposal is accepted by a minority of patients and surgeons, and proves safe and effective in a protocol study, it could be applied to other elective abdominal surgery procedures and used to obtain other abdominal donor organs (e.g. liver and intestinal segments) for transplantation.