Anterior vertical mini-incision vs. retroperitoneoscopic nephrectomy in living kidney donation: a prospective study on donors' quality of life and clinical outcome

Post-Donation Evaluation: Emotional Needs for Social Connection and Social Support among Living Kidney Donors-A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Evaluation of post-nephrectomy social health in living kidney donors is essential. This systematic review examines their emotional need for social relatedness post-donation.

METHODS

Following the PRISMA guidelines, we systematically searched Scopus, CINAHL, and PsycINFO.

RESULTS

Among the screened records, 32 quantitative and 16 qualitative papers met the inclusion criteria. Quantitative research predominantly utilized questionnaires featuring generic items on social functioning. However, a minority delved into emotional and social dimensions, aligning with qualitative studies emphasizing the importance of social connection and perceived social support post-donation. Specifically, post-donation changes in connecting with others encompass a sense of belongingness, heightened autonomy, shifts in concern for the recipient's health, and continued care by shielding the recipient from personal health issues. Social acknowledgment and social support from both close and extended networks are reported as relevant for recovery after nephrectomy.

DISCUSSION

These findings underscore the necessity for targeted measures of emotional needs and social functioning to effectively assess post-donation adjustment. They also inform the identification of key health themes for kidney donor Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) and Patient-Reported Experience Measures (PREMs) questions.

Structured introduction of retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy provides a high level of safety and reduces the physical burden for the donor compared to an anterior mini incision: A cohort study

INTRODUCTION

A major goal in living donor kidney transplantation is to reduce the physical burden for the donor. Key-hole surgery for donor nephrectomy is a safe procedure, but concerns regarding donor safety during the learning phase might be the reason for surgeons' reluctance to change to a minimal invasive approach.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We analyzed the first 100 retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomies (RPDN) performed at our institution and compared the results to the last 50 mini incision donor nephrectomies (MIDN) regarding donor and recipient outcome, and analyzed the learning curves of RPDN.

RESULTS

The learning phase of RPDN was very short with significantly shorter operative times compared to MIDN (118 vs. 175 min, p < 0.001) and significantly fewer surgical complications (p = 0.03). RPDN patients rated the physical burden (p = 0.01) as lower, and they felt less bothered by the surgical scar (p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

Introducing RPDN is safe, even during the learning phase of the surgeons. Changing surgical technique from MIDN to RPDN reduces the surgical burden of the procedure. Our study might encourage more transplant centres to adopt a minimally invasive approach.

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.