Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: the preliminary experience

Preoperative prognostic nomogram for prophylactic steroid treatment of patients with subclinical Cushing's syndrome

Background

Subclinical Cushing’s syndrome (SCS) is incidentally detected in a growing number of patients by advanced imaging technology. However, there is no consensus on the clinical management of SCS, especially in terms of whether prophylactic steroid treatment is necessary following adrenalectomy. In this study we developed a model based on preoperative indices for predicting postoperative adrenal insufficiency (AI) that can guide therapeutic decision-making.

Methods

A total of 27 patients with SCS who underwent adrenalectomy between August 2016 and August 2019 were enrolled and divided into AI and non-AI groups. Cox proportional hazards regression and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator analyses were performed to select relevant clinical parameters. The predictive performance of our model was evaluated by time-dependent receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and calibration curve analyses.

Results

Five clinical parameters (apolipoprotein A1, neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio, total cholesterol, platelet count, and homocysteine) were identified as the best predictors of replacement therapy (RT). The areas under the ROC curve for our prognostic model were 0.833, 0.945, and 0.967 for 3-, 4-, and 5-day non-(N)RT, respectively. The calibration curve of the 5 independent RT-related markers showed a good fit between nomogram-predicted probability of NRT and actual NRT, suggesting that our model has good predictive value.

Conclusions

Our prognostic nomogram can help clinicians identify patients with AI who would benefit from RT so that timely treatment can be initiated.

Keywords

Subclinical Cushing’s syndrome (SCS); Replacement therapy (RT); Adrenal insufficiency (AI); Nomogram; Receiver operating characteristic (ROC)

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.

Pain Experienced by Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy Patients in an Academic Medical Setting

Context

Since 1996, 414 laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy procedures have been completed at our institution. Although this procedure has gained acceptance within the past 5 years, little is known about its nursing implications.

Objective

The purpose of this performance improvement project was to identify pain management practices, satisfaction levels, and clinical outcomes among patients undergoing laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy.

Patients

Data were collected for a convenience sample of 70 patients for 18 months.

Intervention

Several pain management methods were used, including patient-controlled analgesia and intramuscular and oral medications.

Results

Pain ratings ranged from 3.2 to 3.8 for the first 36 hours postoperatively. The mean pain level did not differ significantly between pain regimes. At discharge, patients perceived a mean overall pain level of 5.0 but anticipated a pain level of 6.1. A significant negative correlation between satisfaction and pain rating also was noted.

Conclusions

Opportunities exist to standardize current regimens of pain medications and address pain level and treatment 24 hours postoperatively.

Impact of ureteral length on urological complications and patient survival after kidney transplantation

BACKGROUND

Urologic complications are of the most important complications after kidney transplantation which increases mortality and morbidity significantly.

OBJECTIVES

We designed this study to evaluate the association between ureteral length and postoperative complications.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We recorded the length of the transplanted ureter during the operation. Ureter-to-bladder anastomosis was performed using modified Lich-Gregoir method on the ureteral stent. Complications like urine leakage and increased creatinine were evaluated. We used both univariate and multivariate analyses and survival analysis according lengths of ureter. It means that the main variable is ureteral length and other variables are studied based on it.

RESULT

A total of 395 patients with the mean age of 37 years (range, 18 to 68 years) were enrolled in the study, twenty six graft lost during the follow-up period. The Mean age of recipients was 37 ± 13 years. Urinary stenosis was seen in 6 patients (1.5%) and urinary leakage in 4 (1%) patients. The complication rate was not significantly different between these groups (P = 0.67). We found that there were no significant difference among complication (P = 0.25), hospitalization (P = 0.31) and survival (P = 0.84) at 5.5 cm length cut off.

CONCLUSIONS

The length of transplanted ureter does not affect the postoperative urologic complications (including urinary fistula and ureter-to-bladder anastomosis stricture), and it seems that decreased rate of complication frequency during the recent years is due to technical improvement, surgeon's skillfulness and development in use of immunosuppressant's postoperatively.

Evolution of minimally invasive surgery for donor nephrectomy and outcomes

Modifications to the laparoscopic donor nephrectomy technique may increase this option to donors who may have been considered unsuitable heretofore.

Background:

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy was introduced into Australia in 1997 by this unit. However, some donors may be considered unsuitable, and few modifications to the existing technique can tailor this procedure for an individual donor. Recently, further changes including clustering of ports and single-port methods have been investigated.

Methods:

The laparoscopic method was offered to all but 3 donors from May 1997 to October 2009. Data were collected on all 289 donors who underwent laparoscopic procedures.

Results:

All but 5 donor procedures were completed laparoscopically, and in 4 of them conversion to open was necessary due to hemorrhage. The fifth was a planned conversion in our first right LDN. Delayed graft function was seen in 7 recipients and 5 required dialysis postoperatively. Two kidneys were lost due to arterial thrombosis, and 5 patients underwent segmental infarction with decreased renal function. Mean hospital stay was 2.35±1.67 days. There were no donor deaths or serious morbidity.

Conclusions:

Although the benefits to the donor of the laparoscopic method are well recognized, our modifications will benefit those who may be precluded from this method.

Open and laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: activity and outcomes from all Australasian transplant centers

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LapDN) has been widely adopted despite a lack of randomized trials comparing recipient outcomes with open surgery. Review of registry data now seems the most realistic mechanism to compare outcomes. The Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry prospectively captures data on all renal transplants performed in Australia and New Zealand including long-term follow-up of recipients. AIM.: To compare graft outcomes among recipient of kidneys from donors undergoing nephrectomy using open and laparoscopic techniques, through analysis of the Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry after the introduction of laparoscopic donor surgery in Australia and New Zealand in 1997.

METHODS

Operative technique data for live donor transplants were collected from all surgeons performing live kidney donation procedures from May 1997 to December 2003; the outcomes of all live donor transplants were examined with follow-up to December 2007. Donor and recipient demographic variables and graft outcomes were compared between the laparoscopic and the open donor groups.

RESULTS

One thousand four hundred seventy-four live donor transplants were performed in 27 transplant centers. Of these, 315 (21%) were performed laparoscopically in 11 centers. Nineteen laparoscopic cases (6%) were converted to open. Total ischemic time was longer in the LapDN group (3.16 hr) than in the open donor group (1.61 hr, P<0.0001). The LapDN group experienced a lower incidence of rejection episodes (29.2% vs. 38.6%, P=0.002). Delayed graft function and technical failure rates were statistically equal across the groups. There were a total of 242 graft failures (175 graft losses and 67 deaths with a functioning graft, NS). Among surviving grafts, there was no consistent difference in serum creatinine at any time point. Graft and patient survivals were similar in both groups during 10-year follow-up.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that there is no difference in short- or long-term recipient outcomes for open and laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy.

Transection of the renal pelvis by endocatch bag during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

A case of inadvertent transection of the renal pelvis by the Endocatch bag during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is reported. This is the second reported injury resulting from the Endocatch bag. We have successfully managed the injury with continuing good renal function after 3 years. The aim of this report is to increase the awareness of this potential complication and how it can be prevented.

Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy

BACKGROUND

The demand for renal transplants is greater than the available kidneys. Live donation is one way of increasing the supply. Laparoscopic removal of the donor kidney appears to reduce morbidity for the donors. Some who are hesitant because of the morbidity associated with open nephrectomy are willing to consider the laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.

METHODS

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy was offered to all but three donors since the commencement of the programme in 1997. Data were collected both prospectively and retrospectively for the first 120 donors. Venous and arterial anatomy was assessed preoperatively by computed tomographic angiography.

RESULTS

All but four donor procedures were completed laparoscopically. Three of these were for bleeding that could not be safely controlled laparoscopically and the fourth was a planned conversion to deal with the renal vessels, in the first right nephrectomy. Two kidneys were lost due to arterial thrombosis and two underwent segmental infarction after the loss of one of two or three separately anastomosed vessels. Three recipients had delayed function and two of them required dialysis postoperatively. Other minor complications occurred but were uncommon.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy is safe for the donor and the transplant kidney. It offers the advantage of decreased morbidity for the donor, with a shorter hospital stay, earlier return to normal activity and, for some, early return to work.

Comparison of Outcomes in Noncomplicated and in Higher-Risk Donors after Standard versus Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Nephrectomy

Hand-assisted techniques facilitated dissemination of the laparoscopic approach in live kidney donors and addressed concerns regarding potential procedural complications. We report our experience with both standard and hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy in routine, complicated, and higher-risk donors. From July 1999 to September 2002, 47 donors underwent standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (SLDN; n = 29) or hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN; n = 18). Donors were “complicated” if they were >60 years of age, obese, refused blood-product transfusion, had multiple renal arteries or veins, or had right nephrectomies. “Higher-risk” donors had two or more risk factors. Results for SLDN and HALDN were compared for the overall groups and for the “complicated” and “higher-risk” groups. No donor required blood transfusion or reoperation. Warm-ischemia times were shorter in left nephrectomies (191 ± 72 seconds vs. 337 ± 95 seconds, P = 0.005), and blood loss was greater in patients with a body mass index ≥30 kg/m2 (296 ± 232 mL vs. 170 ± 139 mL, P = 0.03). Higher-risk donors had an increased operative blood loss and longer hospital stay than low-risk donors. Mean donor creatinine at discharge was 1.19 ± 0.2 mg/dL. Comparison of SLDN versus HALDN revealed shorter operating times for the latter, which approached statistical significance. Warm-ischemia time, operative blood loss, length of hospitalization, and donor and recipient discharge creatinines were similar for both groups. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy can be applied to selected higher-risk donors with outcomes comparable to uncomplicated donors. Hand-assisted techniques facilitate the procedure during the learning curve, with advantages similar to standard laparoscopic techniques.

Pain experienced by laparoscopic donor nephrectomy patients in an academic medical setting

CONTEXT

Since 1996, 414 laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy procedures have been completed at our institution. Although this procedure has gained acceptance within the past 5 years, little is known about its nursing implications.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this performance improvement project was to identify pain management practices, satisfaction levels, and clinical outcomes among patients undergoing laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy.

PATIENTS

Data were collected for a convenience sample of 70 patients for 18 months.

INTERVENTION

Several pain management methods were used, including patient-controlled analgesia and intramuscular and oral medications.

RESULTS

Pain ratings ranged from 3.2 to 3.8 for the first 36 hours postoperatively. The mean pain level did not differ significantly between pain regimes. At discharge, patients perceived a mean overall pain level of 5.0 but anticipated a pain level of 6.1. A significant negative correlation between satisfaction and pain rating also was noted.

CONCLUSIONS

Opportunities exist to standardize current regimens of pain medications and address pain level and treatment 24 hours postoperatively.

Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. A review of the first 5 years

Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy is technically feasible. The operation has evolved over the last 5 years and is greatly improved compared with the procedure originally described. Advantages to the donor when compared with the standard open operation are decreased postoperative pain, shorter hospitalization, a quicker recuperation, an earlier return to driving, and an earlier return to employment. These improvements have resulted in fewer lost wages and a lower financial burden for donors. Live donor nephrectomy also provides improved cosmetic results. It successfully removes many of the disincentives to live kidney donation and has resulted in an increased willingness of individuals to donate their kidneys. The operative risk seems to be equivalent to that of the open donor operation performed through a flank approach. Although there is no financial advantage of the laparoscopic operation in terms of hospital costs, the increase seen in live donor transplantation may result in long-term cost savings overall. Kidneys procured laparoscopically function well in recipents in the short and long term. There is no increased risk for rejection or technical complications, and the recipent's length of hospitalization is unaffected. The laparoscopic donor operation does not have any apparent deleterious effect on the recipient. The procedure is being adopted rapidly by transplant centers around the world and has been performed at more than 100 centers on five continents. The authors believe that laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy will become the standard of care in the not too distant future.

Minimally invasive retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy: point of technique

SUMMARY

As the worldwide demand for donor kidneys soars, kidney donation via less invasive and minimally invasive laparoscopic techniques is emerging rapidly as a new and viable option to traditional, open-surgical harvesting techniques. Generally, this method of donation has been feasible by using the transperitoneal approach, but, more recently, it also has been accomplished through retroperitoneal access. The authors describe their modified, cost-reductive technique of live retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy and its very good results. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy appears to be promising; it reduces donor pain and suffering while maintaining excellent graft results.

Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: rationale, techniques, and implications

Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (LDN) was conceived as a means for decreasing donor nephrectomy morbidity and reducing disincentives for kidney donation. Since LDN was first reported in 1995, explosive growth has led to its performance at more than 100 centers worldwide. Despite initial skepticism in some segments of the transplant community, the results of LDN have improved progressively so that it is emerging as a new standard of care for live kidney donation. We review the development and refinement of LDN and its current rationale and applications.

Technique of right laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a single center experience

The majority of laparoscopic donor nephrectomies (LDNs) are limited to the left side due to technical and allograft concerns in using the right. We review our experience with right LDNs. Since June 1997, 15 right LDNs were performed and the records retrospectively reviewed for demographics, operative time, transfusions, complications, and length of stay. Recipient records were also reviewed for delayed graft function, complications, and serum creatinine levels. Overall donor, recipient and graft survivals at 6 months are 100%. Mean operative time was 317 +/- 11.0 min, length of stay was 4.2 +/- 0.2 d, and mean serum creatinine levels at discharge, 1, 3, and 6 months were 1.74 +/- 0.19, 1.59 +/- 0.13, 1.72 +/- 0.13, and 1.68 +/- 0.13 mg/dL, respectively. No transfusions were required. There were no operative or hospital complications. Two recipients (13.3%) experienced delayed graft function, defined as requiring hemodialysis post-transplantation. With hand-assisted laparoscopy, the right laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is safe and allows excellent allograft function.

The safety and efficacy of laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The aim of this systematic review was to compare the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy with the "gold" standard of open live donor nephrectomy.

METHODS

SEARCH STRATEGY

Three search strategies were devised to enable literature retrieval from the Medline, Current Contents, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases up until, and including, February 2000.

STUDY SELECTION

Inclusion of a report was determined on the basis of a predetermined protocol, independent assessment by two reviewers, and a final consensus decision. English language reports were selected and acceptable study designs included randomized-controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, case series, or case reports. Each report was required to provide information on at least one of several safety and efficacy outcomes as detailed in the protocol.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Twenty-five reports met the inclusion criteria. They were tabulated and critically appraised in terms of the methodology and design, sample size, outcomes, and the possible influence of bias, confounding, and chance.

RESULTS

High level evidence comparing the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy with open donor nephrectomy was not available at the time of this review. Limited low level evidence suggested that the laparoscopic approach might be advantageous regarding the donor's hospital stay, convalescence, pain, and resumption of employment.

CONCLUSIONS

The ASERNIP-S Review Group concluded that the evidence-base for laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy was inadequate to make a safety and efficacy recommendation. Clinical and research recommendations were developed regarding the introduction and current practice of this procedure in Australia.