Current practice of live donor nephrectomy in Turkey

BACKGROUND

Over the last few years, the deceased donor organ donation rate was declined or remained stable, whereas the live donor organ donation rate has increased to compensate for the demand. Minimally invasive techniques for live donor nephrectomy (LDN) have also improved the live donor kidney donation rates. This increase has led to an interest in the surgical procedures used for LDN.

AIM

To evaluate the LDN techniques performed in Turkey, the structure of surgical teams, and the training received. Additionally, the number of kidney transplantations at different centers, the surgeon experience level, differences in surgical approach during donor surgeries, and outcomes were assessed.

METHODS

A questionnaire was sent to the Turkish Ministry of Health-accredited transplant centers. It inquired of the number of LDN surgeries, surgical techniques, complications, optimization protocols, the experience of surgeons, and the training. Descriptive statistics were outlined as follows: Discrete numeric variables were expressed as medians (minimum-maximum), while categorical variables were shown as numbers and percentages. As a result of the goodness-of-fit tests, if the significance of the differences between the groups in discrete numerical variables for which the parametric test statistical assumptions were not met, data were analyzed with the Mann Whitney U test and the χ² test.

RESULTS

The questionnaire was sent to 72 transplant centers, all of which replied. Five centers that reported not performing LDN procedures were excluded. Responses from the remaining 67 centers were analyzed. In 2019, the median number of kidney transplants performed was 45, and the median number of kidney transplants from living donors was 28 (1-238). Eleven (16.5%) centers performed 5-10, while 34 (50.7%) centers performed more than 100 live donor kidney transplants in 2019. While 19 (28.4%) centers performed the LDN procedures using the open technique, 48 (71.6%) centers implemented minimally invasive techniques. Among the centers preferring minimally invasive techniques for LDN, eight (16.6%) used more than one surgical technique. The most and the least common surgical techniques were transperitoneal laparoscopic (43 centers, 89.6%) and single port laparoscopic LDN (1 center, 2.1%) techniques, respectively. A positive association was found between the performance of minimally invasive techniques and the case volume of a transplant center, both in the total number and live donor kidney transplants (15 vs 55, P = 0.001 and 9 vs 42, P ≤ 0001 respectively). The most frequently reported complication was postoperative atelectasis (n = 33, 49.2%). There was no difference between the techniques concerning complications except for the chyle leak.

CONCLUSION

Turkish transplant centers performed LDN surgeries successfully through various techniques. Centers implementing minimally invasive techniques had a relatively higher number of live donor kidney transplants in 2019.

The altruistic elderly, a valuable but unrecognised kidney donor group. A case report of an 85-year-old unspecified kidney donor

Background

Kidney transplantation is the definitive treatment for end stage renal disease (ESRD), offering improved quality of life and survival benefit over remaining on dialysis. There is, however, a prevailing significant mismatch between patients awaiting transplantation and available donor kidneys. Over time, initial stringent donor criteria have broadened and organs from extended criteria donors (ECDs) and older donors are now being accepted for transplantation. The spectrum of living donors has also undergone a change from close family members to an increasingly non-related, non-directed altruistic donors, newly classified as ‘unspecified’ donors. Unspecified elderly donors could be a potential untapped resource to expanding the kidney donor pool globally.

Case Presentation

We present a case of an 85 year and 8 months old individual, who donated to an unrelated non-directed matched recipient in the national deceased donor transplant waiting list with excellent donor and recipient outcomes at 7 years.

Conclusion

To our knowledge she is one of the oldest reported unspecified living kidney donors in the world to date. This case illustrates that elderly donors in good health can come forward to donate, knowing that it is safe and valuable. Once the immediate perioperative challenges after kidney donation are managed, elderly donors rarely encounter long term sequelae. We therefore report this case to increase awareness and refocus attention of transplant teams on elderly donors as a potential untapped group to help address the organ shortage problem in renal transplantation.

The effect of single or multiple arteries in the donor kidney on renal transplant surgical outcomes

BACKGROUND

As the number of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients is increasing, but there are not enough living donors, it is necessary to broaden the criteria for candidates who can undergo donor nephrectomy. Thanks to surgeons' increasing experience with laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LND), multiple renal artery grafts, previously considered a relative contraindication to donor nephrectomy, have become candidates for LDN. We aimed to compare the outcomes of donors and recipients with single artery and with multiple arteries in LDN.

METHODS

A total of 214 patients were included in the study. Patients were divided into two groups according to the number of donor arteries: donors with one artery (group 1) and donors with multiple arteries (group 2). The number of donor arteries, operative time, warm ischemia time (WIT), cold ischemia time (CIT), arterial anastomosis time, venous anastomosis time, the extent of bleeding, and preoperative complications were recorded to evaluate the preoperative data.

RESULTS

The mean operation time in group 1 was 90.3 ± 11.8 min, while in group 2, it was 102.1 ± 5.5 min (p = 0.000). WIT group 1 was 90.9 ± 4.3 s and group 2 100.6 ± 2.1 s (p = 0.000). Arterial anastomosis time was 12.25 ± 3.8 in group 1 and 22.5 ± 4.5 in group 2 (p = 0.000). No statistically significant difference was found between the two groups in other parameters.

CONLUSION

Increasing the number of donor arteries in renal transplantation (RT) operations prolonged the operation time on both the donor and recipient sides. Still, it had no negative impact on complications or graft function in the postoperative period.

Safe transition from open to pure laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: Approach and results

Introduction

Laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy (LLDN) offers many advantages compared to open living donor nephrectomy. However, the perceived difficulty in learning LLDN has slowed its wider implementation. Herein, we describe the evolution of LLDN at a single center, emphasizing the approach and technical modifications and its impact on outcome.

Methods

The series included a 2½-year period and three different surgeons. We started with two-stage plan for establishing LLDN at the institute (introduction and consolidation). Data of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy performed at the institution were prospectively evaluated regarding donor and recipient outcome.

Results

From December 2016 to April 2019, 221 donors underwent LLDN. Three donors required conversion to open surgery. The mean operation time was 96.4 (62-158) min and the mean warm ischemia time was 186 (149-423) s. The complications were observed in 11.6% of donors from LLDN group and all complications were Class I and Class II only (Clavien-Dindo classification). No Class III and Class IV complications occurred. In the present study, there was some learning curve effect observed only in operative time (OT) with longer OT in initial cases. However, the overall operative complications were minimal, showing that this learning curve had no deleterious effects on donor safety.

Conclusion

The present study demonstrates that with proper planning, team approach, and a few technical modifications, the transition from open to LLDN could be safe and effective.

Does the Side Matter? A Retrospective Cohort Study Comparing Left and Right Pure Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomies

OBJECTIVES

Right laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (RLDN) is no longer regarded inferior to left LDN (LLDN). However, this knowledge is based on many studies suffering from inherent learning curves, center-specific imbalances, and different laparoscopic techniques.

METHODS

Pure LDNs at a high-volume referral center from 2011 to 2016 were retrospectively analyzed. Patient, graft characteristics, outcomes of LDNs, and corresponding open kidney transplantations were compared between LLDN and RLDN including a follow-up.

RESULTS

160 (78.4%) LLDNs and 44 (21.6%) RLDNs only differed regarding graft characteristics, as more right grafts had multiple veins (34.1 vs. 6.9%, p < 0.001) and worse scintigraphic function (44 vs. 51%, p < 0.001). RLDNs were shorter (201 vs. 220 min, p = 0.032) with longer warm ischemia time (165 vs. 140 s, p < 0.001), but left grafts were transplanted faster (160 vs. 171 min, p = 0.048). Recipients of right kidneys had more postoperative complications (grade 3: 25.6 vs. 11.3%, p = 0.020). At a follow-up of 45 (range 6-79) months, neither the kidney function, nor death-censored graft (5-year: LLDN 89 vs. 92%, p = 0.969) and patient survival (5-year: LLDN 95 vs. 98%, p = 0.747) differed.

CONCLUSIONS

Pure LLDN and RLDN can have different outcomes at high-volume centers, especially higher complications for recipients of right grafts. However, long-term function and graft survival are the same irrespective of the chosen side.

Retroperitoneoscopic Standard or Hand-Assisted Versus Laparoscopic Standard or Hand-Assisted Donor Nephrectomy: A Systematic Review and the First Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

At the present four minimally invasive procedures namely retroperitoneoscopic (RPDN), laparoscopic (LPDN), hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic (HARDN) and hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN) are used to perform donor nephrectomies. The current evidence based on retrospective studies and on pairwise only meta-analyses is inconclusive. Up to authors' best knowledge there is no so far network meta-analysis to compare all the above-mentioned procedures. Therefore, a network meta-analysis was conducted to compare the feasibility, safety and reproducibility of the four donor nephrectomies procedures.

METHODS

Google Scholar, EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane library were used for a systematic literature search. Both updated pairwise and network meta-analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Compared to LPDN there was evidence of significantly more right kidneys retrieved with RPDN; nonsignificant differences demonstrated both with HALDN and HARDN compared to LPDN. There was evidence that the operative time was significantly shorter by 77 min in RPDN compared to LPDN; on the other hand, HARDN and HALDN did not demonstrate significant differences when compared to LPDN.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study demonstrates that each approach can be applied safely in adequately selected patients. Moreover, retroperitoneoscopic is reliable, safe and easily reproducible alternative of LPDN for both left and right kidneys.

Delayed remnant kidney function recovery is less observed in living donors who receive an analgesic, intrathecal morphine block in laparoscopic nephrectomy for kidney transplantation: a propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

This study analyzed remnant kidney function recovery in living donors after laparoscopic nephrectomy to establish a risk stratification model for delayed recovery and further investigated clinically modifiable factors.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This retrospective study included 366 adult living donors who underwent elective donation surgery between January 2017 and November 2019 at our hospital. ITMB was included as an analgesic component in the living donor strategy for early postoperative pain relief from November 2018 to November 2019 (n = 116). Kidney function was quantified based on the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and delayed functional recovery of remnant kidney was defined as eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m² on postoperative day (POD) 1 (n = 240).

RESULTS

Multivariable analyses revealed that lower risk for development of eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m² on POD 1 was associated with ITMB, female sex, younger age, and higher amount of hourly fluid infusion (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.783; 95% confidence interval = 0.734-0.832; p < 0.001). Propensity score (PS)-matching analyses showed that prevalence rates of eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m² on PODs 1 and 7 were higher in the non-ITMB group than in the ITMB group. ITMB adjusted for PS was significantly associated with lower risk for development of eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m² on POD 1 in PS-matched living donors. No living donors exhibited severe remnant kidney dysfunction and/or required renal replacement therapy at POD 7.

CONCLUSIONS

We found an association between the analgesic impact of ITMB and better functional recovery of remnant kidney in living kidney donors. In addition, we propose a stratification model that predicts delayed functional recovery of remnant kidney in living donors: male sex, older age, non-ITMB, and lower hourly fluid infusion rate.

Is a Retroaortic Vein a Risk Factor in Laparoscopic Living Donor Nephrectomy?

INTRODUCTION

In living donor transplantation choosing the right donor and donor side for laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is a challenging task in clinical practice. Knowledge about anomalies in renal blood supply are crucial to evaluate the feasibility of the operative procedure. Few data so far exist whether the existence of a retroaortic left renal vein has an impact on living kidney transplantation outcome for donor and recipient.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 221 patients who underwent laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy between 2011 and 2017 for existence of a retroaortic left renal vein. Clinical characteristics and operative outcomes for donors and recipients were analyzed.

RESULTS

221 patients underwent donor nephrectomy between 2011 and 2017; 11 patients (4.98%) showed the feature of a retroaortic left renal vein, and in 8 patients (72.7%) out of those 11 the left kidney was chosen for transplantation. Mean preoperative serum creatinine was 0.77 (0.49-0.98) mg/dL and 1.28 (0.97-1.64) mg/dL at discharge. In recipients mean serum creatinine preoperatively, after 1 week, 1 month,1 year, 2 and 3 years of follow-up was 10.36 (6.09-20.77) mg/dL, 1.71 (0.67-2.72), 1.33 (0.70-1.89), 1.31 (0.95-2.13), 1.31 (0.98-2.13) and 1.33 (1.03-1.84), respectively. Neither donors nor recipients suffered from any operative complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy of a left kidney with retroaortic renal vein is safe for the donor, without limitation in the outcome for the recipient.

Persistent orchialgia after laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy: an underestimated complication requiring information adjustment

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy (LLDN) is the gold-standard procedure for kidney procurement. Ipsilateral orchialgia has barely been described. Some authors reported that ligation of gonadal vein (GV) above iliac vessel bifurcation could prevent orchialgia. We aimed to assess incidence and duration of orchialgia after LLDN in male donors despite distal ligation of GV.

METHODS

Patients who underwent LLDN from 2014 to 2017 were included. Standard procedure consisted in distal ligation of GV, close to the renal vein confluence and proximal ureteral ligation. Patients' demographics, per-operative data, and post-operative consultation reports were retrospectively reviewed. Orchialgia and scrotal symptoms were assessed through a non-validated questionnaire by phone interview.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine donors were included. Orchialgia incidence and testicular swelling were 31.9% (n = 22) and 15.9% (n = 11), respectively. Median symptom duration was 15.5 months. Orchialgia led to medical consultation in 41.7% (n = 10) of cases. All patients declared having been informed, prior to donation, about possible residual pain but not specifically orchialgia.

CONCLUSION

Orchialgia after LLDN affects more than 30% of donors, despite distal ligation of GV and led less than 50% of them to medical consultation, suggesting a large underestimation in clinical practice. Emphasis should be put on this complication during pre-donation information.

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.

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy versus open donor nephrectomy: Outcomes from a single transplant center

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) is currently replacing open donor nephrectomy (ODN) across the world. Its advantages in terms of patient recovery are well known. We sought to compare surgical outcomes, particularly renal function during the post-nephrectomy period, for renal grafts procured by LDN versus ODN in our center. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed all cases of living donor nephrectomies performed from 2004 to 2014 at Hospital Universitario La Paz. We compared demographic data; medical background, operative times, post-operative complications, and renal function follow up at 6, 12 and 18-month controls. RESULTS: A total of 114 living donor nephrectomies were performed: 85 LDN and 29 ODN. Demographic characteristics and medical background were similar among both groups, except mean donor age; 41.4 vs 47.4 years (p = 0.009) in the LDN and ODN groups respectively. LDN was used predominantly for left kidneys (83 out of 85), and ODN for right kidneys (28 out of 29). Although not significantly, mean operative time was shorter for the LDN group (169.37 vs 181.46 minutes; p = 0.2). Mean warm ischemia time was shorter for the ODN group (2.92 vs 2.36 minutes; p = 0.28). Differences between post-operative complications were not statistically different between both groups (p = 0.19). There were no conversions from LDN to ODN, and no re-admissions were registered. Length of stay was slightly shorter in LDN but not different (4.29 vs 4.92 days; p = 0.43). Renal function follow-up, measured with serum creatinine levels showed no difference over time (p = 0.67). CONCLUSIONS: Data from our series demonstrate that outcomes and renal function follow up over time were similar among both groups. In expert hands, this altruistic procedure can be performed with a minimally invasive approach without an increased complication rate or compromising renal function in donors.

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.

Laparoscopic and hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

To compare the perioperative outcomes of hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN) and pure LDN, as HALDN and LDN are the two most widely used techniques of DN to treat end-stage renal disease.

Methods

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we performed a literature search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane from 01/01/1995 to 31/12/2014. The primary outcome was conversion to an open procedure. Secondary outcomes were warm ischaemia time (WIT), operation time (OT), estimated blood loss (EBL), complications, and length of stay (LOS). Data analysed were presented as odds ratios (ORs) or weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), I², and P values. Subgroup analysis was performed.

Results

There were 24 studies included in the meta-analysis; three randomised controlled trials (RCTs), one randomised pilot study, two prospective, and 18 retrospective cohort studies. There were no differences in conversion to an open procedure between the two techniques for both RCTs (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.06, 2.90; I² = 0%, P < 0.001) and cohort studies (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.63, 1.78; I² = 0%, P = 0.84). WIT was shorter for the HALDN (-41.79 s, 95% CI -71.85, -11.74; I² = 96%, P = 0.006), as was the OT (-26.32 min, 95% CI -40.67, -11.97; I² = 95%, P < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in EBL, complications or LOS.

Conclusion

There is little statistical evidence to recommend one technique. HALDN is associated with a shorter WIT and OT. LDN has equal safety to HALDN. Further studies are required.

Mini-incision versus hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in living-donor kidney transplantation: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Increasing use of Living Donor Kidney Transplantation (LDKT) would decrease the discrepancy between patients awaiting transplantation and organ availability. Minimally invasive surgical approaches attempt to improve outcomes and foster living donation. This report compares outcomes of open minimal incision nephrectomy (Mini N) and a hand assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy (HALN).

METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained clinical database of LDKT using HALN or Mini N at a single institution between July 2007 and December 2015. Donor and recipient demographics, relevant pre-, intra- and post-operative factors, outcomes such as patient and graft survival rates, and complications were evaluated.

RESULTS

Four hundred and fifty-four adult LDKT (243 Mini N, 211 HALN) were performed during the study period. Recipient and donor demographics were comparable except for higher BMI (p = 0.027) in HALN donors. One-, 3- and 5-year patient and graft survival rates were comparable. Six HALN donors experienced infectious wound complications or superficial skin dehiscence; none did in the Mini N group (p = 0.009). Eight HALN donors and one Mini N donor required an incisional hernia repair (p = 0.014). Recipients had similar warm ischemia times (33 v. 35 min, p = 0.491), but recipient surgeons of HALN nephrectomies subjectively noted higher anastomotic difficulty (10.4% v. 4.5%, p = 0.0183). Other parameters were similar between groups.

CONCLUSION

Both Mini N and HALN provide similar long term recipient and donor outcomes. Offering techniques such as Mini N and HALN for living donor kidney procurement facilitates the opportunity to provide living donors safer and better tolerated nephrectomy procedures.

Deep neuromuscular blockade improves surgical conditions during low-pressure pneumoperitoneum laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

Background

Evidence indicates that low-pressure pneumoperitoneum (PNP) reduces postoperative pain and analgesic consumption. A lower insufflation pressure may hamper visibility and working space. The aim of the study is to investigate whether deep neuromuscular blockade (NMB) improves surgical conditions during low-pressure PNP.

Methods

This study was a blinded randomized controlled multicenter trial. 34 kidney donors scheduled for laparoscopic donor nephrectomy randomly received low-pressure PNP (6 mmHg) with either deep (PTC 1–5) or moderate NMB (TOF 0–1). In case of insufficient surgical conditions, the insufflation pressure was increased stepwise. Surgical conditions were rated by the Leiden-Surgical Rating Scale (L-SRS) ranging from 1 (extremely poor) to 5 (optimal).

Results

Mean surgical conditions were significantly better for patients allocated to a deep NMB (SRS 4.5 versus 4.0; p < 0.01). The final insufflation pressure was 7.7 mmHg in patients with deep NMB as compared to 9.1 mmHg with moderate NMB (p = 0.19). The cumulative opiate consumption during the first 48 h was significantly lower in patients receiving deep NMB, while postoperative pain scores were similar. In four patients allocated to a moderate NMB, a significant intraoperative complication occurred, and in two of these patients a conversion to an open procedure was required.

Conclusions

Our data show that deep NMB facilitates the use of low-pressure PNP during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy by improving the quality of the surgical field. The relatively high incidence of intraoperative complications indicates that the use of low pressure with moderate NMB may compromise safety during LDN. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT 02602964.

Effectiveness of deep versus moderate muscle relaxation during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in enhancing postoperative recovery: study protocol for a randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND

Postoperative recovery after live donor nephrectomy is largely determined by the consequences of postoperative pain and analgesia consumptions. The use of deep neuromuscular blockade has been shown to reduce postoperative pain scores after laparoscopic surgery. In this study, we will investigate whether deep neuromuscular blockade also improves the early quality of recovery after live donor nephrectomy.

METHODS

The RELAX-study is a phase IV, multicenter, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial, in which 96 patients, scheduled for living donor nephrectomy, will be randomized into two groups: one with deep and one with moderate neuromuscular blockade. Deep neuromuscular blockade is defined as a post-tetanic count of 1-2. Our primary outcome measurement will be the Quality of Recovery-40 questionnaire (overall score) at 24 h after extubation.

DISCUSSION

This study is, to our knowledge, the first randomized study to assess the effectiveness of deep neuromuscular blockade during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in enhancing postoperative recovery. The study findings may also be applicable for other laparoscopic procedures.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02838134 . Registered on 29 June 2016.

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.

MDCT evaluation of potential living renal donor, prior to laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: What the transplant surgeon wants to know?

As Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy (LDN) offers several advantages for the donor such as lesser post-operative pain, fewer cosmetic concerns and faster recovery time, there is growing global trend towards LDN as compared to open nephrectomy. Comprehensive pre-LDN donor evaluation includes assessment of renal morphology including pelvi-calyceal and vascular system. Apart from donor selection, evaluation of the regional anatomy allows precise surgical planning. Due to limited visualization during laparoscopic renal harvesting, detailed pre-transplant evaluation of regional anatomy, including the renal venous anatomy is of utmost importance. MDCT is the modality of choice for pre-LDN evaluation of potential renal donors. Apart from appropriate scan protocol and post-processing methods, detailed understanding of surgical techniques is essential for the Radiologist for accurate image interpretation during pre-LDN MDCT evaluation of potential renal donors. This review article describes MDCT evaluation of potential living renal donor, prior to LDN with emphasis on scan protocol, post-processing methods and image interpretation. The article laid special emphasis on surgical perspectives of pre-LDN MDCT evaluation and addresses important points which transplant surgeons want to know.

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: The Middle East experience

OBJECTIVES

To summarize the experience of the Middle East in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN), to discuss the associated advantages and salient problems, to examine the learning curve encountered compared with that of the pioneering centres in the West, and the contribution of the regional centres to the worldwide experience.

METHODS

We searched Medline and PubMed for all centres performing LDN in the Middle East. Questionnaires were e-mailed to the regional transplantation centres, and programme directors, and leading urological and transplant surgeons were contacted by telephone.

RESULTS

LDN in the Middle East was first introduced in 2000; this approach has been pioneered and practised at seven transplant centres within five countries in the region, and was restricted to only three Arab countries, i.e. Lebanon, Egypt and Kuwait. Data collection yielded a total of 888 procedures over one decade, representing only 2% of the total of ≈50,000 transplants during the same period. Despite variability of accurate reporting the overall outcomes were similar to those of open DN. The spectrum of complications was comparable to that from major centres in the USA during their learning curve.

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of LDN in the Middle East has been gratifying. The relative hesitancy in introducing LDN in the rest of the Arab Middle East is multifaceted. The advantages conferred to the donor underscore the need for further expansion of this approach for kidney retrieval.

Outcomes of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in the presence of multiple renal arteries

Purpose:

Data of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) with multiple renal arteries for donor and recipient outcomes were reviewed, with the aim of clarifying whether the laparoscopic approach is safe in the presence of multiple renal arteries.

Materials and Methods:

All donor nephrectomies performed at our institution from 2004 to 2008 were reviewed retrospectively. Results were compared between LDN kidneys with multiple arteries and those with a single renal artery.

Results:

Out of 171 donor nephrectomies, 21 (12%) were performed for kidneys with multiple renal arteries. All of the 150 (88%) donor nephrectomies in the single vessel group were performed laparoscopically. In the multiple artery group, 9 (43%) underwent an open procedure while 12 (57%) underwent a laparoscopic procedure. The warm ischemia time was longer in the multiple artery group than the single artery group, but the difference was not statistically significant (4.25±0.87 min vs. 4.12±0.95 min, respectively). Regarding transplant recipients, the vascular anastomosis time was similar in both groups (30±4.6 min vs. 29.5±3.7 min). The operative blood loss in the transplant recipients was significantly more in the multiple artery group compared to the single artery group (339±292 ml and 130.7±44.8 ml, respectively; P=0.03). The recipient renal function was similar for both the groups at postoperative day 7, 1 month, and at 1 year.

Conclusion:

The data support the fact that the laparoscopic approach to donor nephrectomy in the presence of multiple renal arteries can be performed safely with adequate laparoscopic experience.

Acute Appendicitis following Laparoscopic Live Donor Nephrectomy

Acute abdominal pain following laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (LLDN) might be a diagnostic dilemma, and prompt diagnosis and management is of paramount importance. Herein, we describe a case of acute appendicitis in a 62-year-old kidney donor who presented with acute abdominal pain 16 days following LLDN with features inconsistent with a diagnosis of acute appendicitis. An ultrasound scan suggested strangulated Spigelian hernia unrelated to the operative wound. Exploration of the wound and mini-laparotomy showed no evidence of wound dehiscence or a hernia, but revealed an inflamed appendix wrapped up with omentum. Appendectomy led to complete recovery of the patient. It is imperative to maintain a high index of suspicion for acute appendicitis in this situation to avoid septic complications that might adversely affect the residual renal function and cause negative impact on kidney donation. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first reported case of acute appendicitis following LLDN.

Unilateral dependant pulmonary edema during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: report of three cases

SUMMARY

Unilateral pulmonary edema of the dependant lung was observed in three patients during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Patients were treated with O2 supplementation by face mask, fluid restriction and diuretic. All the patients were relieved of symptoms with radiological improvement. The possible causes of this unusual complication following laparoscopic surgery appear to be prolonged lateral decubitus position and high intraoperative fluid infusion.

A Comparative Study of Laparoscopic with Conventional Open Donor Nephrectomy in Renal Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) has been gaining popularity among kidney donors. There have been concerns about the safety and efficacy of the procedure as compared to open donor nephrectomy (ODN). We compare our results on LDN with ODN.

METHODS

We retrospectively analysed our data of LDN and ODN. Duration of surgery, blood loss, period of hospitalisation, per oral intake and analgesic requirements.

RESULT

22 LDNs were done, the operation time ranged from 220-300 minutes, and blood loss from 100-150ml. In the first 10 laparoscopic operations four cases required conversion to open surgical dissection. Only one case was converted to open surgery in the subsequent 12 laparoscopic cases. Oral intake was started on the first postoperative day. Analgesic requirement in laparoscopy cases was less. Patients were mobilised on the first day after surgery. Patients were discharged by seventh day. There was no significant difference in the functioning of the graft after revascularisation in the recipient.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is a safe and effective technique of donor nephrectomy.