Can robot-assisted kidney transplantation provide higher quality of life than open kidney transplantation during the early postoperative period?

Robotic kidney transplantation

Kidney transplantation is the best treatment option for patients with end-stage renal disease owing to improved survival and quality of life compared with dialysis. The surgical approach to kidney transplantation has been somewhat stagnant in the past 50 years, with the open approach being the only available option. In this scenario, evidence of reduced surgery-related morbidity after the introduction of robotics into several surgical fields has induced surgeons to consider robot-assisted kidney transplantation (RAKT) as an alternative approach to these fragile and immunocompromised patients. Since 2014, when the RAKT technique was standardized thanks to the pioneering collaboration between the Vattikuti Urology Institute and the Medanta hospital (Vattikuti Urology Institute-Medanta), several centres worldwide implemented RAKT programmes, providing interesting results regarding the safety and feasibility of this procedure. However, RAKT is still considered an alternative procedure to be offered mainly in the living donor setting, owing to various possible drawbacks such as prolonged rewarming time, demanding learning curve, and difficulties in carrying out this procedure in challenging scenarios (such as patients with obesity, severe atherosclerosis of the iliac vessels, deceased donor setting, or paediatric recipients). Nevertheless, the refinement of robotic platforms through the implementation of novel technologies as well as the encouraging results from multicentre collaborations under the umbrella of the European Association of Urology Robotic Urology Section are currently expanding the boundaries of RAKT, making this surgical procedure a real alternative to the open approach.

Predicting Delayed Postoperative Length of Stay Following Robotic Kidney Transplantation: Development and Simulation of Perioperative Risk Factors

Background and Objective: Early discharge following robot-assisted kidney transplantation (RAKT) is a cost-effective strategy for reducing healthcare expenses while maintaining favorable short- and long-term prognoses. This study aims to identify predictors of postoperative delayed discharge in RAKT patients and develop a predictive model to enhance clinical outcomes. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study included 146 patients aged 18 years and older who underwent RAKT at a single tertiary medical center from August 2020 to January 2024. Data were collected on demographics, comorbidities, social and medical histories, preoperative labs, surgical information, intraoperative data, and postoperative outcomes. The primary outcome was delayed postoperative discharge (length of hospital stay > 7 days). Risk factors for delayed discharge were identified through univariate and multivariate regression analyses, leading to the development of a risk scoring system, the effectiveness of which was evaluated through receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Results: 110 patients (74.8%) were discharged within 7 days post-transplant, while 36 (24.7%) remained hospitalized for 8 days or longer. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses identified ABO incompatibility, BUN levels, anesthesia time, and vasodilator use as risk factors for delayed discharge. The RAKT score, incorporating these factors, demonstrated a predictive performance with a C-statistic of 0.789. Conclusions: This study identified risk factors for delayed discharge after RAKT and developed a promising risk scoring system for real-world clinical application, potentially improving postoperative outcome stratification in RAKT recipients.

Access to robotic assisted kidney transplant for recipients: a systematic review and call for reporting standards

Robot-assisted kidney transplantation (RAKT) is a relatively novel, minimally invasive option for kidney transplantation. However, clarity on recipient selection in the published literature is lacking thereby significantly limiting interpretation of safety and other outcomes. This systematic review aimed to identify and synthesize the data on selection of RAKT recipients, compare the synthesized data to kidney transplant recipients across the USA, and explore geographical clusters of availability of RAKT. Systematic literature review, in accordance with PRISMA, via OVID MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of science from inception to March 5, 2023. All data entry double blinded and quality via Newcastle Ottawa Scale. 44 full-text articles included, encompassing approximately 2402 kidney transplant recipients at baseline but with considerable suspicion for overlap across publications. There were significant omissions of information across studies on patient selection for RAKT and/or analysis. Overall, the quality of studies was very low. Given suspicion of overlap across studies, it is difficult to determine how many RAKT recipients received living (LD) versus deceased donor (DD) organs, but a rough estimate suggests 89% received LD. While the current RAKT literature provides preliminary evidence on safety, there are significant omissions in reporting on patient selection for RAKT which limits interpretation of findings. Two recommendations: (1) international consensus is needed for reporting guidelines when publishing RAKT data and (2) larger controlled trials consistently reporting recipient characteristics are needed to clearly determine selection, safety, and outcomes across both LD and DD recipients.

Living donor robotic-assisted kidney transplant compared to traditional living donor open kidney transplant. Where do we stand now? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Renal transplant is the standard of care for patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Robotic-assisted kidney transplant (RAKT) has emerged as a safe minimally invasive approach with a lower complication rate than open kidney transplant (OKT). Concerns regarding ischemia times and graft function are still a matter of debate.

METHODS

Following PRISMA guidelines and PROSPERO registration CRD42023413774, a systematic review was performed in March 2023 on RAKT compared to OKT. Primary outcomes of interest were surgical times, ischemia times, blood loss, complication rates, and graft function. Data were analyzed using R version 4.2.2.

RESULTS

A total of nine studies comparing living donor RAKT to living donor OKT were included, totaling 1477 patients, out of which 508 underwent RAKT and 969 OKT. RAKT cases were highly selected as depicted in the manuscript. Cumulative analysis showed significantly longer total ischemic time (MD = 16.51; 95% CI = [9.86-23.16]) and rewarming ischemia time (MD = 11.24; 95% CI = [-0.46-22.01]) in RAKT group. No differences were found in total procedure time and time to complete anastomoses. Blood loss and transfusion rate were lower in RAKT group (MD = -53.68; 95% CI = [-89.78; -17.58]) and (RR = 0.29; 95% CI = [0.14; 0.57]), respectively. The meta-analysis revealed a lower rate of surgical site infection (SSI) (RR = 0.31; 95% CI = [0.19-0.52]) and symptomatic lymphocele (RR = 0.16; 95% CI = [0.06-0.43]) in RAKT. No difference in ileus rate was found. Pain scores were significantly lower in the RAKT group (MD = -1.14; 95% CI = [-1.59 - -0.69]; p ≤0.01). No difference in length of stay and hospital readmission were evidenced. Delayed graft function (DGF) and acute rejection rates were not different between interventions groups (RR =1.23; 95% CI = [0.40-3.74]) and (RR =0.96; 95% CI = [0.55-1.70]), respectively. No difference between groups in early graft outcomes are evident.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis suggests that RAKT is a minimally invasive, safe, and feasible procedure. It is associated with a lower complication rate and similar intraoperative, perioperative, and postoperative outcomes. Further quality studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Open versus robotic-assisted kidney transplantation: A systematic review by the European Association of Urology (EAU) - Young Academic Urologists (YAU) Kidney Transplant Working Group

INTRODUCTION

In the last 20 years, robotic assisted procedures were evaluated in the field of kidney transplantation to provide a mini-invasive approach for this particularly fragile population. As a relatively new issue, few studies compared open kidney transplantation (OKT) and robotic-assisted kidney transplantation (RAKT), mostly in small cohorts. To improve current knowledge, we wanted here to gather comparative data of OKT vs RAKT in a systematic review.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed according to preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched to identify all studies reporting post-operative outcomes of RAKT versus OKT.

RESULTS

A total of 2136 patients in 13 studies were included. Median recipient age was 42.6 years (OKT: 43.5 years and RAKT: 40.3 years). Median preemptive kidney transplantation rate was 27.1 % (OKT: 23.3 % and RAKT: 33.2 %). Median total operative time and rewarming were respectively: 235 and 49 min in OKT population; 250 and 60 min in RAKT population. Post-operative complications rates were: 26.2 % in OKT population and 17.8 % in RAKT population. Delayed graft function rates were: 4.9 % in OKT population and 2.3 in RAKT population. Mid-term functional outcomes, patient and graft survival were similar in OKT and RAKT population.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review showed that RAKT may be associated with a lower incidence of delayed graft function and post-operative surgical complications and similar mid-term functional outcomes, patient and graft survival, compared to OKT for end-stage renal disease patients.

Robot-assisted kidney transplantation as a minimally invasive approach for kidney transplant recipients: A systematic review and meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted kidney transplantation (RAKT) has emerged as an alternative for kidney transplant recipients with the potential benefits of minimally invasive surgery. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the clinical outcomes of RAKT with open kidney transplantation (OKT).

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane databases were systematically searched. Baseline characteristics, intraoperative and postoperative outcomes were collected, as well as long-term renal function and data on graft and patient survival.

RESULTS

Eleven studies were included, which compared 482 RAKT procedures with 1316 OKT procedures. RAKT was associated with lower a risk of surgical site infection (Risk ratio (RR) = 0.15, p < 0.001), symptomatic lymphocele (RR = 0.20, p = 0.03), less postoperative pain (Mean difference (MD) = -1.38 points, p < 0.001), smaller incision length (MD = -8.51 cm, p < 0.001), and shorter length of hospital stay (MD = -1.69 days, p = 0.03) compared with OKT. No difference was found in renal function, graft, and patient survival.

CONCLUSIONS

RAKT is a safe and feasible alternative to OKT with less surgical complications without compromising renal function, graft and patient survival.