Robot-assisted laparoscopic vs laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in renal transplantation: A meta-analysis

Pure Laparoscopic Versus Hand-Assisted Nephrectomy: Comparative Outcomes in Living Kidney Donors

INTRODUCTION

Kidney transplantation remains the only curative therapy for end-stage renal disease, with living donor nephrectomy playing a vital role in addressing the shortage of deceased donors. This study compares the effectiveness and safety of two minimally invasive surgical techniques for kidney graft procurement: pure laparoscopic nephrectomy and hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective, observational study analyzed 50 living donor nephrectomies performed between 2021 and 2024 at a high-specialty hospital in Mexico. Sociodemographic, clinical, and surgical variables - including surgical time, bleeding, warm ischemia time, complications (Clavien-Dindo classification), and creatinine levels - were evaluated. Statistical analyses were conducted to assess differences between the two techniques.

RESULTS

The hand-assisted technique was performed in 31 (62%) cases, while the pure laparoscopic approach was used in 19 (38%). The mean surgical time (203.54 ± 62.72 min) and bleeding volume (258.78 ± 536.67 mL) showed no statistically significant differences between the techniques (p > 0.05). Complications occurred in four (8%) patients, with higher-grade complications (3B and 4B) observed exclusively in the pure laparoscopic group. Creatinine levels demonstrated no significant differences between groups at any postoperative interval.

DISCUSSION

Both techniques proved to be safe and effective for living donor nephrectomy, with comparable outcomes in surgical parameters and donor renal function. The hand-assisted technique offered advantages in terms of lower bleeding variability, while pure laparoscopic nephrectomy was associated with higher-grade complications in isolated cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Living donor nephrectomy is a safe and effective procedure using either technique, emphasizing the importance of institutional expertise and individualized surgical planning. Future research should focus on multicenter studies, donor quality of life, and the integration of advanced technologies such as robotic systems to optimize outcomes.

The Impact of Learning Curve on Robotic Living Donor Nephrectomy Outcomes: Retrospective Analysis

BACKGROUND

We aimed to investigate the outcome of patients after RDN at different time points.

METHODS

We studied the outcomes of 77 living robotic living donor nephrectomies (RDN). Donors were separated into three groups: learning curve period (LCP), stabilisation period (SP), and teaching period (TP).

RESULTS

There were significant differences in blood loss and hospitalisation times between the three groups. Operative time was significantly shorter in the LCP group compared with the SP and TP groups (282 ± 51.6 min vs. 308 ± 38.7 min vs. 314 ± 28.7, p = 0.02). However, warm ischaemia time was shorter in the TP group compared with the LCP and SP groups (5.0 ± 3.6 min vs. 3.4 ± 3.2 min vs. 1.5 ± 1.3 min, p < 0.01). Complication rates were higher in the LCP group compared with the SP and TP groups (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that RDN outcomes improve after the learning period.

Effective and safe implementation of robot-assisted donor nephrectomy by experienced laparoscopic surgeons

BACKGROUND

In June 2021, the first robot-assisted donor nephrectomy (RADN) was performed at the Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), the Netherlands. The goal of this study was to investigate whether this procedure has been implemented safely and efficiently.

METHODS

RADN was retrospectively compared to laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) performed during the same time period (June 2021 until November 2022). Patients were assigned to RADN depending on the availability of the da Vinci robot and surgical team. The studied endpoints were postoperative complications, operative time, estimated blood loss, warm ischemic time (WIT), and postoperative pain experience. For analysis, the Student's t-test and Chi-squared test were used for, respectively, continuous and categorical data.

RESULTS

Forty RADN were compared to 63 LDN. Total insufflation time was significantly longer in RADN compared to LDN (188 min (169-214) versus 172 min (144-194); p = 0.02). Additionally, WIT was also found to be significantly higher in the robot-assisted group (04:54 min vs. 04:07 min; p < 0.01). No statistical differences were found in postoperative outcomes (eGFR of the recipient at 3-month follow-up, RADN 54.08 mL/min ±18.79 vs. LDN 56.41 mL/min ±16.82; p = 0.52), pain experience, and complication rate.

CONCLUSION

RADN was safely and efficiently implemented at the LUMC. It's results were not inferior to laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Operative time and warm ischemic times were longer in RADN. This may relate to a learning curve effect. No clinically relevant effect on postoperative outcomes was observed.

Robotic versus open mini-incision living donor nephrectomy: Single centre experience

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery is associated with less tissue manipulation and earlier recovery with minimal incision. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term clinical outcomes between robotic-assisted donor nephrectomy (RDN) and open mini-incision donor nephrectomy (ODN).

METHODS

From 2016 to 2019, 141 cases involving RDN were analysed. Patient outcomes were compared with those of 191 patients who underwent ODN from 2010 to 2015. Demographics, operation factors, perioperative outcomes, and complications were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

The RDN group presented with less blood loss than the ODN group (p = 0.023). The length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the RDN group than in the ODN group (p < 0.005). The overall rate of complications was low and there was no significant difference in complication rates between the groups.

CONCLUSION

The robotic approach has benefits over the traditional open approach, including shorter length of hospital stay and reduced intraoperative blood loss.

Robotic living donor nephrectomy is associated with reduced post-operative opioid use compared to hand-assisted laparoscopic approach

BACKGROUND

Robotic donor nephrectomy (RDN) has emerged as a safe alternative to laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN). Having previously demonstrated comparable efficacy, this study aims to examine postoperative analgesia use (opioid and non-opioid) in the two groups.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of 300 living donor nephrectomies performed at our center, comparing 150 RDN's with a contemporary cohort of 150 hand-assisted LDN's. In addition to clinical and demographic information, data on postoperative inpatient opioid and non-opioid analgesia (from patient's arrival to the surgical floor after surgery till the time of discharge) was collected. Opioid dosages were standardized by conversion to morphine milligram equivalents (MME). All patients were managed post-operatively under a standardized ERAS pathway for living donor nephrectomy patients.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in donor age, gender, and BMI between RDN and LDN groups. Total post-operative opioid use (MME's) was significantly lower in RDN patients (RDN 27.1 vs. LDN 46.3; P < 0.0001). Breakdown of opioid use with post-operative (POD) day demonstrated significantly lower use in RDN group on POD1 (RDN 8.6 vs. LDN 17.0; P < 0.05), and POD2 (RDN 3.9 vs LDN 10; P < 0.05). RDN patients had a shorter post-operative length of stay (LOS) (RDN 1.69 days vs. LDN 1.98; P = 0.0003). There were no differences between groups in non-opioid medication use, complications, and readmission rates.

CONCLUSION

RDN has comparable safety to hand-assist LDN and offers additional benefits of lower postoperative opioid requirement and a shorter hospital LOS.

Robotic and laparoscopic right lobe living donation compared to the open approach: A multicenter study on 1194 donor hepatectomies

Due to the success of minimally invasive liver surgery, laparoscopic and robotic minimally invasive donor hepatectomies (MIDH) are increasingly performed worldwide. We conducted a retrospective, multicentre, propensity score-matched analysis on right lobe MIDH by comparing the robotic, laparoscopic, and open approaches to assess the feasibility, safety, and early outcomes of MIDHs. From January 2016 until December 2020, 1194 donors underwent a right donor hepatectomy performed with a robotic (n = 92), laparoscopic (n = 306), and open approach (n = 796) at 6 high-volume centers. Donor and recipients were matched for different variables using propensity score matching (1:1:2). Donor outcomes were recorded, and postoperative pain was measured through a visual analog scale. Recipients' outcomes were also analyzed. Ninety-two donors undergoing robotic surgery were matched and compared to 92 and 184 donors undergoing laparoscopic and open surgery, respectively. Conversions to open surgery occurred during 1 (1.1%) robotic and 2 (2.2%) laparoscopic procedures. Robotic procedures had a longer operative time (493 ± 96 min) compared to laparoscopic and open procedures (347 ± 120 and 358 ± 95 min; p < 0.001) but were associated with reduced donor blood losses ( p < 0.001). No differences were observed in overall and major complications (≥ IIIa). Robotic hepatectomy donors had significantly less pain compared to the 2 other groups ( p < 0.001). Fifty recipients of robotic-procured grafts were matched to 50 and 100 recipients of laparoscopic and open surgery procured grafts, respectively. No differences were observed in terms of postoperative complications, and recipients' survival was similar ( p =0.455). In very few high-volume centers, robotic right lobe procurement has shown to be a safe procedure. Despite an increased operative and the first warm ischemia times, this approach is associated with reduced intraoperative blood losses and pain compared to the laparoscopic and open approaches. Further data are needed to confirm it as a valuable option for the laparoscopic approach in MIDH.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic retroperitoneal donor nephrectomy: a safe and efficient improvement

PURPOSE

Reducing operative injuries is important in living donor nephrectomy. The robot-assisted transperitoneal approach has some advantages than traditional laparoscopic techniques. However, longer operation time and risks of abdominal complications indicate the need for improved techniques. The aim of this study is to present the robot-assisted laparoscopic retroperitoneal donor nephrectomy and evaluate its safety and feasibility.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study. From June 2016 to December 2020, 218 living donors underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic retroperitoneal donor nephrectomy. Perioperative data such as operation time, warm ischemia time, length of stay and complications were collected and analyzed. To evaluate the feasibility of this surgical technique, the cumulative summation method was used to construct a learning curve.

RESULTS

There were 60 male and 158 female donors aged 36-72 years, with an average age of 53.1 ± 6.8 years. Three patients (1.4%) were converted to open surgery. The mean operation time was 115.4 ± 41.9 min, the warm ischemia time was 206.6 ± 146.7 s, and the length of stay was 4.1 ± 1.4 days. Complications were reported in 22 patients (10.1%), three of whom (1.4%) had Clavien‒Dindo IIIa complications. No ileus occurred. No donors were readmitted. Four patients had delayed graft function. The cumulative summation curve showed that the number needed to reach proficiency was 33. The operation time and warm ischemia time after technical proficiency were 100.4 ± 21.6 min and 142.5 ± 50.7 s, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Robot-assisted laparoscopic retroperitoneal donor nephrectomy is a safe and efficient technique that offers advantages of shorter operation time and no abdominal organ interference.

Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy: superior outcomes after completion of the learning curve

The use of robots in donor nephrectomy has increased in recent years. However, whether robot-assisted methods have better outcomes than traditional laparoscopic methods and how surgical experience influences these outcomes remains unclear. This meta-analysis compares the outcomes of robot-assisted donor nephrectomy (RADN) with those of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) and to investigate the effects of surgical experience on these outcomes. A systematic literature search was conducted in Medline (through PubMed) and Web of Science databases. Perioperative data were extracted for meta-analysis. To assess the impact of the learning curve, a subgroup analysis was performed to compare outcomes between inexperienced and experienced surgeons. Seventeen studies with 6970 donors were included. Blood loss was lower (mean difference [MD] = - 13.28, p < 0.01) and the warm ischemia time was shorter (MD = - 0.13, p < 0.05) in the LDN group than the RADN group. There were no significant differences in terms of conversion to open surgery, operation time, surgical complications, hospital stay, costs, and delayed graft function between the groups. Subgroup analysis revealed that operation time (MD = - 1.09, p < 0.01) and length of hospital stay (MD = - 1.54, p < 0.05) were shorter and the rate of conversion to open surgery (odds ratios [OR] = 0.14, p < 0.0001) and overall surgical complications (OR = 0.23, p < 0.05) were lower in experienced RADN surgeons than in experienced LDN surgeons. Surgical experience enhances the perioperative outcomes following RADN more than it does following LDN. This suggests that RADN could be the method of choice for living donor nephrectomy as soon as surgeons gain sufficient experience in robotic surgery.

Robotic donor nephrectomy: optimizing outcomes beyond the limitations of laparoscopy

BACKGROUND

Robotic donor nephrectomy (RDN) has emerged as a safe alternate to laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN), offering improved visualization, instrument dexterity and ergonomics. There is still concern about how to safely transition from LDN to RDN.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of 150 consecutive living donor operations (75 LDN and 75 RDN) at our center, comparing the first 75 RDN's with the last 75 LDN's performed prior to the initiation of the robotic transplant program. Operative times and complications were used as surrogates of efficiency and safety, respectively, to estimate the learning curve with RDN.

RESULTS

RDN was associated with a longer total operative time (RDN 182 vs LDN 144 min; P < 0.0001) but a significantly shorter post-operative length of stay (RDN 1.8 vs LDN 2.1 days; P = 0.0213). Donor complications and recipient outcomes were the same between both groups. Learning curve of RDN was estimated to be about 30 cases.

CONCLUSIONS

RDN is a safe alternate to LDN with acceptable donor morbidity and no negative impact on recipient outcomes even during the early part of the RDN learning curve. Surgeon preferences for the robotic approach compared to traditional laparoscopy will require further scrutiny to improve ergonomics and operative efficiency.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy: A Retrospective Bicentric Comparison of Learning Curves and Surgical Outcomes From 2 High-volume European Centers

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) represents the gold-standard technique for kidney living donation, robotic donor nephrectomy (RDN) settled as another appealing minimally invasive technique over the past decades. A comparison between LDN and RDN outcomes was performed.

METHODS

RDN and LDN outcomes were compared, focusing on operative time and perioperative risk factors affecting surgery duration. Learning curves for both techniques were compared through spline regression and cumulative sum models.

RESULTS

The study analyzed 512 procedures (154 RDN and 358 LDN procedures) performed between 2010 and 2021 in 2 different high-volume transplant centers. The RDN group presented a higher prevalence of arterial variations (36.2 versus 22.4%; P  = 0.001) compared with the LDN cohort. No open conversions occurred; operative time (210 versus 195 min; P  = 0.011) and warm ischemia time (WIT; 230 versus 180 s; P  < 0.001) were longer in RDN. Postoperative complication rate was similar (8.4% versus 11.5%; P  = 0.49); the RDN group showed shorter hospital stay (4 versus 5 d; P  < 0.001). Spline regression models depicted a faster learning curve in the RDN group ( P  = 0.0002). Accordingly, cumulative sum analysis highlighted a turning point after about 50 procedures among the RDN cohort and after about 100 procedures among the LDN group.Higher body mass index resulted as an independent risk factor for longer operative time for both techniques; multiple arteries significantly prolonged operative time in LDN, whereas RDN was longer in right kidney procurements; both procedures were equally shortened by growing surgical experience.

CONCLUSIONS

RDN grants a faster learning curve and improves multiple vessel handling. Incidence of postoperative complications was low for both techniques.

Retroperitoneal robot-assisted live-donor nephrectomy: A single-center study

Background

As the demand for kidney transplants continues to increase globally, healthcare institutions face a challenge to bridge the gap between patients waitlisted for kidney transplants and the number of donors. A major factor influencing the donor's decision is the operative risk and potential complications of the surgery. Open surgical approaches have been vastly replaced with laparoscopic donor nephrectomies as the standard of practice. However, there is a growing body of evidence pointing towards its potential superiority over laparoscopic methods. In this study, we aim to present our experience on outcomes of Robotic-Assisted Live Donor Nephrectomies (RALDN), the first series of its kind in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

Methods

We retrospectively collected data from patients who underwent RALDN at Mediclinc City Hospital. Demographic data, laboratory investigations, and operative details were collected and analyzed.

Results

Seven patients underwent RALDN between 2021 and April 2022 at our facility. Four donors were male while three were female. Median length of hospital stay was 4 days. In our study, one of the patients suffered from a Clavien-Dindo grade IV complication which necessitated prolonged admission.

Conclusion

We conclude that RALDN is a safe method for donor kidney procurement, carrying a low risk of morbidity and mortality. This method could potentially evolve the number of kidney donors to address the issue of high kidney transplant demand.

Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy for renal transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Renal transplantation remains the definitive treatment for end-stage renal disease. Currently employed minimally invasive techniques include robotic-assisted laparoscopy and laparoscopy. This study aims to determine whether either method provides an advantage.

METHODS

Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review was conducted. Data were analysed using Review Manager 5.3.

RESULTS

A total of 12 studies were included. Operative time and operative bleeding were similar between both approaches, with a mean difference (MD) of 16min (95% confidence interval (CI) -4.06, 37.38; p = 0.11) and 10.44ml (95% CI -43.89, 64.78; p = 0.71), respectively. Robotics had longer warm ischemia time (MD 1.14min; 95% CI 0.65, 1.63; p = 0.00001) but reduced length of stay (LOS) (MD -0.23days; 95% CI -0.45, -0.01; p = 0.04) and pain (MD -1.26 VAS; 95% CI -1.77, 0.75). Similar complication and conversion rates were seen among groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic approaches provide a viable alternative to laparoscopic surgery. Operative time, bleeding volumes, complications and conversion rates are similar between both techniques; apparent robotic advantages on LOS and Pain need to be better analysed by future studies.

Recommendations for living donor kidney transplantation

This Guide for Living Donor Kidney Transplantation (LDKT) has been prepared with the sponsorship of the Spanish Society of Nephrology (SEN), the Spanish Transplant Society (SET), and the Spanish National Transplant Organization (ONT). It updates evidence to offer the best chronic renal failure treatment when a potential living donor is available. The core aim of this Guide is to supply clinicians who evaluate living donors and transplant recipients with the best decision-making tools, to optimise their outcomes. Moreover, the role of living donors in the current KT context should recover the level of importance it had until recently. To this end the new forms of incompatible HLA and/or ABO donation, as well as the paired donation which is possible in several hospitals with experience in LDKT, offer additional ways to treat renal patients with an incompatible donor. Good results in terms of patient and graft survival have expanded the range of circumstances under which living renal donors are accepted. Older donors are now accepted, as are others with factors that affect the decision, such as a borderline clinical history or alterations, which when evaluated may lead to an additional number of transplantations. This Guide does not forget that LDKT may lead to risk for the donor. Pre-donation evaluation has to centre on the problems which may arise over the short or long-term, and these have to be described to the potential donor so that they are able take them into account. Experience over recent years has led to progress in risk analysis, to protect donors' health. This aspect always has to be taken into account by LDKT programmes when evaluating potential donors. Finally, this Guide has been designed to aid decision-making, with recommendations and suggestions when uncertainties arise in pre-donation studies. Its overarching aim is to ensure that informed consent is based on high quality studies and information supplied to donors and recipients, offering the strongest possible guarantees.

Surgical Approaches and Outcomes in Living Donor Nephrectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

CONTEXT

The use of living kidney donors is increasing and there are several surgical approaches for donor nephrectomy but it remains unknown which procedure is optimal for the patient and the graft.

OBJECTIVE

To review different surgical techniques for living donor nephrectomy and compare complication rates, warm ischemia time, and delayed graft function.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic review of prospective studies involving surgical complications following living donor nephrectomy was conducted in the MEDLINE/PubMed and EMBASE databases according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P). Baseline data, perioperative and postoperative parameters, and postoperative complications are reported. Overall complication rates between surgical techniques were compared via analysis of variance with post hoc analysis. We included 35 studies involving 6398 patients and representing six different surgical procedures for living donor nephrectomy.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy had a significantly higher overall complication rate compared to open, laparoscopic, retroperitoneoscopic, and laparoendoscopic single-site techniques (p < 0.005). The complication rates were low and no mortality was observed. The main limitation was varying reporting of complications, with only one-third of the studies using the Clavien-Dindo classification.

CONCLUSIONS

No specific surgical approach seems superior in terms of complications, which were generally low. Different factors such as warm ischemia time, blood loss, and surgeon expertise define which surgical approach should be chosen.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We looked at the different surgical methods for removing the kidney from a living kidney donor. Overall, the different surgical techniques were similar in terms of complications and no donors died in the studies we reviewed. The choice of procedure depends on multiple factors such as the expertise of the surgeon and the surgical center.

Robotic-assisted laparoscopy living donor nephrectomy: Technique and results of a monocentric retrospective series

INTRODUCTION

Robot-assisted nephrectomy for living kidney donation (LKD) has been described in the literature as a safe and reproducible technique in high volume centers with extensive robotic surgery experience. Any surgical procedure in a healthy individual ought to be safe in regards to complications. The objective of this study was to evaluate the Robotic-assisted Living Donor Nephrectomy (RLDN) experience in a robotic surgery expert center.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study from 11/2011 and 12/2019. In total, 118 consecutive Living Donor (LD) kidney transplants were performed at our institution. All the procedures were performed by robotic-assisted laparoscopic approach. Extraction was performed by iliac (IE), vaginal (VE) or umbilical extraction (UE). The left kidney was preferred even if the vascular anatomy was not modal.

RESULTS

For donors: the median operative time was 120min with 50mL of blood loss. The median warm ischemia time was 4min, with a non-significant shorter duration with the UE (4min) in comparison with IE or VE (5min). Nine patients had postoperative complications including 1 grade II (blood transfusion) and 1 grade IIIb (vaginal bleeding after VE). None of our procedures were converted to open surgeries and no deaths were reported. For the recipients: 1.7% presented delayed graft function; their median GFR at 1 year was 61mL/min/1.73m².

CONCLUSION

RLDN in an expert center appears to be a safe technique. The advantages of the robot device in terms of ergonomy don't hamper the surgical outcomes. Donor, recipient and graft survivals seem comparable to the reported laparoscopic outcomes in the literature.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

Robotic versus hand-assisted laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy: comparison of two minimally invasive techniques in kidney transplantation

Robot-assisted donor nephrectomy (RDN) is increasingly used due to its advantages such as its precision and reduced learning curve when compared to laparoscopic techniques. Concerns remain among surgeons regarding possible longer warm ischemia time. This study aimed to compare patients undergoing robotic living donor nephrectomy to the more frequently used hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy (HLDN) technique, focusing on warm ischemia time, total operative time, learning curve, hospital length of stay, donor renal function and post-operative complications. Retrospective study comparing RDN to HLDN in a collaborative transplant network. 176 patients were included, 72 in RDN and 104 in HLDN. Left-sided nephrectomy was favored in RDN (82% vs 52%, p < 0.01). Operative time was longer in RDN (287 vs 160 min; p < 0.01), while warm ischemia time was similar (221 vs 213 secs, p = 0.446). The hospital stay was shorter in RDN (3.9 vs 5.7 days, p < 0.01).Concerning renal function, a slightpersistent increase of 7% of the creatinine ratio was observed in the RDN compared to the HLDN group (1.56 vs 1.44 at 1-month checkup, p < 0.01). The results show that RDN appears safe and efficient in comparison to the gold-standard HLDN technique. Warm ischemia time was similar for both techniques, whereas RDN operative time was longer. Patients undergoing RDN had a shorter hospital stay, this being possibly mitigated by differences in center release criteria. Donor renal function needs to be assessed on a longer-term basis for both techniques.

Single-Port Donor Nephrectomy via Modified Pfannenstiel Incision: Initial Preclinical Experience in a Cadaveric Model and Description of Technique

Objective: To describe the surgical technique for the single-port (SP) transperitoneal donor nephrectomy (DN) through a modified Pfannenstiel incision using the Da Vinci SP® surgical system (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA) on a cadaver. Patients and Methods: In a male cadaver, the SP surgical system was used to perform transperitoneal DN. A 3-cm modified Pfannenstiel incision was made. Through the incision GelPOINT mini (Applied Medical, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA) was inserted. The floating docking technique was used. Through the gel port, the dedicated 25-mm multichannel port and a 12-mm assistant port were introduced. The surgical steps for DN were performed in the following order: (1) mobilization of the colon, (2) identification of psoas muscle, ureter, and the gonadal vein, (3) hilum dissection, (4) perirenal dissection, (5) stapling the renal artery and renal vein, and (6) removal of the kidney through the enlarged incision. Results: Transperitoneal SP DN was completed without any complications or capsulotomy. Additional ports were not needed. The total operative time was 63 minutes and 54 seconds. A good-quality kidney was harvested. Renal artery length was 4 cm. Conclusion: We demonstrated the feasibility of SP transperitoneal DN through modified Pfannenstiel incision, using the novel SP robotic platform. Further assessment is necessary in a clinical setting.

[Robot-assisted Living Donor Nephrectomy - Technical Aspects and Initial Evidence]

Minimally invasive donor nephrectomy has become the standard procedure in most transplant centres over the past two decades and has contributed to a reduction in postoperative morbidity for the donor. Robot-assisted technology is an alternative to conventional (hand-assisted) laparoscopic technology and will find increasing use in the future. In this review article, we address technical aspects of robotic-assisted donor nephrectomy, in accordance with our own experience and will provide an overview of the currently available literature. Robot-assisted living kidney donation is a safe procedure with a very low postoperative complication rate. The procedure offers advantages over the open surgical technique with respect to the reduction in the postoperative need for analgesia and the duration of hospital stay, with longer operating times and warm ischemia times, but without a measurable effect on transplant function. The postoperative outcome parameters are comparable to those of the laparoscopic technique, indicating a further acceleration of postoperative convalescence. The advantages of robot-assisted technology, due to the better exposure options, are most relevant in patients with a high BMI and multiple renal arteries, as well as in right-sided nephrectomies in which a longer transplant artery can be obtained. Robot-assisted living kidney donation will play a major role in the future of transplant surgery and is a serious alternative to conventional laparoscopic technology.

Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Living Donor Nephrectomy: The University of Florence Technique

Objective: To provide a step-by-step overview of the University of Florence technique for robotic living donor nephrectomy (LDN), focusing on its technical nuances and perioperative outcomes.

Methods: A dedicated robotic LDN program at our Institution was codified in 2012. Data from patients undergoing robotic LDN from 2012 to 2019 were prospectively collected. All robotic LDNs were performed by a highly experienced surgeon, using the da Vinci Si robotic platform in a three-arm configuration. In this report we provide a detailed overview of our surgical technique for robotic LDN. The main objective of the study was to evaluate the technical feasibility and safety of the technique, including perioperative surgical complications rate and mid-term functional outcomes.

Results: Overall, 36 patients undergoing robotic LDNs were included in the study. Of these, 28 (78%) were left LDNs. Median (IQR) donor pre-operative eGFR was 88 (75.6–90) ml/min/1.73 m². In all cases, robotic LDN was completed without need of conversion. The median (IQR) overall operative time was 230 (195–258) min, while the median console time was 133 (IQR 117-166) min. The median (IQR) warm ischemia time was 175 (140–255) s. No intraoperative adverse events or 90-d major surgical complications were recorded. At a median (IQR) follow-up of 24 months (IQR 11-46), median (IQR) eGFR patients undergoing in living donor nephrectomy was 57.4 (47.9; 63.9) ml/min/1.73 m².

Conclusions: In our experience, robotic LDN is technically feasible and safe. The use of robotic surgery for LDN may provide distinct advantages for surgeons while ensuring optimal donors' perioperative and functional outcomes.

Role of laparoscopy in the era of robotic surgery in urology in developing countries

With the rapid expansion of robotic platforms in urology, there is an urgent and unmet need to review its cost and benefits in comparison to the traditional laparoscopy, especially in reference to a developing country. A nonsystematic review of the literature was conducted to compare the outcomes of pure laparoscopic and robot-assisted urologic procedures. Available literature over the past 30 years was reviewed. Robot-assisted surgery and laparoscopy were found to have similar outcomes in the areas of radical prostatectomy, partial and radical nephrectomy, radical cystectomy, retroperitoneal lymph node (LN) dissection, inguinal LN dissection, donor nephrectomy, and kidney transplantation. Robot-assisted surgery was found to be significantly costlier than pure laparoscopy. In the absence of a clear advantage of robot-assisted surgery over pure laparoscopy, lack of widespread availability and the currently prohibitive cost of robotic technology, laparoscopic urological surgery has a definite role in the developing world.

[The first 50 robot-assisted donor nephrectomies : Lessons learned]

Hintergrund

Die minimal-invasive Donornephrektomie (DN) ist inzwischen operativer Standard, bezüglich der Rolle von roboterassistierten Verfahren gibt es bisher keinen Konsens.

Fragestellung

Die ersten 50 transperitonealen roboterassistierten Donornephrektomien (RDN) einer urologischen Universitätsklinik in Deutschland wurden retrospektiv ausgewertet.

Material und Methoden

Patientencharakteristika, intra- und postoperative Parameter wurden erfasst und die Nierenfunktion in einem 5‑jährigen Follow-up ausgewertet. Signifikante Prädiktoren für die Nierenfunktion bei Entlassung und ein Jahr postoperativ wurden in einem multivariablen Regressionsmodell bestimmt.

Ergebnisse

Die RDN hat exzellente Ergebnisse mit niedriger Komplikationsrate, kurzer warmer (WIZ) und kalter Ischämiezeit (KIZ) sowie geringem Blutverlust und kurzer Patientenverweildauer. Die Seite der Nierenentnahme hat hierauf keine Auswirkungen. Nach RDN sind etwa 50 % der Spender formal niereninsuffizient, was aber zumeist ohne Relevanz ist, weil sich die Nierenfunktion der Spender im Follow-up nicht weiter verschlechtert. Die postoperative Nierenfunktion lässt sich bei der RDN mithilfe der präoperativen eGFR (errechnete glomeruläre Filtrationsrate) und dem Spenderalter sehr gut vorhersagen.

Schlussfolgerungen

Die robotische DN stellt eine sehr gute Alternative zu anderen minimal-invasiven Operationsverfahren dar, die von Beginn an exzellente operative Ergebnisse ermöglicht.

Robot-Assisted versus Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy: A Comparison of 250 Cases

Living kidney donation is the best treatment for end-stage renal disease, however, the best surgical approach for minimally-invasive donor nephrectomy (DN) is still a matter of debate. This bi-centric study aimed to retrospectively compare perioperative outcomes and postoperative kidney function after 257 transperitoneal DNs including 52 robot-assisted (RDN) and 205 laparoscopic DNs (LDN). As primary outcomes, the intraoperative (operating time, warm ischemia time (WIT), major complications) and postoperative (length of stay, complications) results were compared. As secondary outcomes, postoperative kidney and graft function were analyzed including delayed graft function (DGF) rates, and the impact of the surgical approach was assessed. Overall, the type of minimally-invasive donor nephrectomy (RDN vs. LDN) did not affect primary outcomes, especially not operating time and WIT; and major complication and DGF rates were low in both groups. A history of smoking and preoperative kidney function, but not the surgical approach, were predictive for postoperative serum creatinine of the donor and recipient. To conclude, RDN and LDN have equivalent perioperative results in experienced centers. For this reason, not the surgical approach, but rather the graft- (preoperative kidney function) and patient-specific (history of smoking) aspects impacted postoperative kidney function.

Nefrectomía laparoscópica en un programa de donante vivo en la Costa Caribe de Colombia

La nefrectomía laparoscópica en donante vivo es la mejor opción en el proceso del trasplante para pacientes con enfermedad renal crónica en estadio cuatro y cinco. El objetivo del artículo es describir la experiencia en el programa de donante vivo de riñón entre el 2013 y el 2018 en Colombiana de Trasplantes en la costa Caribe colombiana. Se realizó un estudio descriptivo que incluyó una muestra consecutiva de 55 donantes vivos de riñón operados por Colombiana de Trasplantes, entre enero de 2013 y enero de 2018; se llevó a cabo el análisis estadístico de las variables relevantes. La media de la edad fue de 41 años. El 57,4% de los donantes fueron mujeres. El tiempo de cirugía tuvo una media de 1,9 horas. Ninguno de los pacientes falleció en el seguimiento a los seis meses y el promedio de la estancia hospitalaria posterior a la cirugía fue de dos días. Las variables relevantes y los desenlaces de los pacientes son similares a los de otros grupos de trasplantes, sin embargo, hay características específicas que pueden ayudar a mejorar las estrategias en salud en la costa Caribe colombiana.

Introducing Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy after Experience in Hand-Assisted Retroperitoneoscopic Approach

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (RALDN) can help to improve donor safety by enabling enhanced precision, flexibility, control, and vision. We are presenting our initial series during the introduction of RALDN by comparing our adopted surgical technique, hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy (HARPDN), performed at the same time interval.

METHODS

We performed 12 RALDN and 27 HARPDN with Pfannenstiel incision between March 2018 and July 2018. We evaluated the demographics, operation duration, warm/cold ischemia time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, and donor and recipient serum creatinine levels retrospectively.

RESULTS

Demographics including sex, mean of age, and body mass index of the 2 groups were similar. Five cases were right sided nephrectomy in the HARPDN group. We performed only left sided donor nephrectomy in the RALDN group. The duration of operation and warm ischemia time was significantly longer in the robot-assisted group (P < .001). Postoperative major complications were not detected in any of the donors. The function of the transplanted kidneys in both groups was good on the fifth day and 1 month postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

We introduced the robot-assisted approach for donor candidates who are not suitable candidates for HARPDN in our center. The operation time and warm ischemia time was longer in the RALDN group, but it did not have any impact on outcome. The robot-assisted donor nephrectomy technique can be introduced safely in centers experienced in the hand-assisted approach.