Laparoscopic v open donor nephrectomy for pediatric kidney recipients: preliminary report of a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Laparoscopic surgery is widely accepted for nephrectomy in adult renal transplantation. The success of this technique has not been compared with open donor nephrectomy (ODN) in children. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this randomized clinical trial, 40 adult kidney donors were randomly divided into two groups: 20 cases of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) and 20 of ODN. Recipients had an age of <15 years. Our exclusion criteria were previous renal transplantation, hemolytic uremic syndrome, focal segmental glomerulosclerosis, oxalosis in the recipients, and multiple renal arteries bilaterally in donors. RESULTS: All donor nephrectomies were completed as scheduled, and no patients undergoing LDN required conversion to open nephrectomy. No patients in either the ODN or the LDN group required reoperation. Acute rejection was diagnosed in six patients receiving kidneys procured by ODN (30%) and 4 patients (20%) receiving kidneys obtained by LDN (P = 0.3). No recipients or donors died. At 1 year, the graft survival times in the ODN and LDN groups were 310.8 +/- 28.8 and 302.7 +/- 28.2 days, respectively (P = 0.8). CONCLUSION: At our medical center, pediatric LDN recipients had graft outcomes similar to those of ODN recipients. We recommend LDN for harvest of kidneys for pediatric recipients at experienced centers.     

The effect of laparoscopic and open donor nephrectomy on the long-term renal function in donor and recipient: a retrospective study

Pneumoperitoneum, as used in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN), may result in negative effects on renal function in donor and recipient. This study compares long-term serum creatinine in donor and recipient after laparoscopic and open donor nephrectomy (ODN). A retrospective analysis of 120 LDN and 100 ODN donors and their recipients was performed. Serum creatinine of donor and recipient was recorded and analyzed. The follow-up period posttransplantation was 3 years. Serum creatinine in the recipients was significantly higher in the LDN groups the first week after transplantation. Serum creatinine in the donor was significantly higher in the LDN group at 1 day, 3 months, and 1 year posttransplant. Finally, creatinine levels remained 40% higher compared to preoperative values in both donor groups. LDN results in higher short-term serum creatinine levels in donor and recipient. Long-term serum creatinine levels were comparable after LDN or ODN in donor and recipient.     

Impact of intraoperative donor management on short-term renal function after laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether intraoperative diuresis, postoperative recovery, and early graft function differ between laparoscopic open nephrectomy (LDN) and open donor nephrectomy (ODN). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy can reduce donor complications in terms of decreased pain and shorter convalescence. Although its technical feasibility has been established, concerns have been raised about the impaired renal function resulting from pneumoperitoneum and short- and long-term function of kidneys removed by LDN. METHODS: Between December 1997 and December 2000, 89 LDNs were performed at the authors' institution. These were compared with 83 conventional ODNs performed between January 1994 and December 1997. Graft function, intraoperative variables, and clinical outcome were compared. RESULTS: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy was attempted in 89 patients and completed in 91% (81/89). Length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the laparoscopic group. During kidney dissection, the amount of fluids administered and intraoperative diuresis were significantly lower for LDN. In recipients, mean serum creatinine was higher after LDN compared with ODN 1 day after surgery. From postoperative days 2 until 28, there were no differences in serum creatinine. Graft survival rates were similar for LDN and ODN. CONCLUSIONS: Donors can benefit from an improvement in postoperative recovery after LDN. Assessment of an adequate perioperative hydration protocol is mandatory to ensure optimal kidney quality during laparoscopic procurement. The initial graft survival and function rates justify continued development and adoption of LDN.     

Beneficial effects of a new fluid regime on kidney function of donor and recipient during laparoscopic v open donor nephrectomy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) has been associated with delayed graft function compared with open donor nephrectomy (ODN). We have recently shown that the adverse effect of pneumoperitoneum (PP) on hemodynamics could be prevented by a new fluid regime. The aim of this study was to test the effect of this fluid regime on the kidney function of the donor and recipient after LDN and ODN. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We prospectively collected data of 51 donors undergoing ODN and 59 donors undergoing LDN as well as data from the corresponding recipients. All donors and recipients were treated with a standardized anesthesia and fluid regime. This fluid regime consisted of preoperative overnight hydration together with a bolus of colloid administered before induction of anesthesia and before introduction of PP. Follow-up was 2 years. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of the two groups were comparable. Hemodynamics and urine output until nephrectomy were comparable between both groups. Donor kidney function did not differ after ODN and LDN. Estimated glomerular filtration rate, graft survival, and recipient survival did not differ between open and laparoscopically procured transplants. No adverse effects of the novel fluid regime (eg, pulmonary edema or additional oxygen supply) were observed in the donors. CONCLUSION: In contrast to our earlier findings, the kidney function of the donor and recipient is comparable between ODN and LDN after introduction of a new fluid regime.     

Open versus laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in live related renal transplantation

BACKGROUND: This analysis sought to evaluate the efficiency and safety of laparoscopic nephrectomy (LDN) for the donor, the recipient, and the graft. LDN seems to have advantages over the open donor nephrectomy (ODN) in length of hospital stay, postoperative comfort, and pain control. METHODS: The results of 40 patients who underwent LDN between October 2000 and September 2003 were compared to those of 40 ODN patients just preceding the LDN patients. Eight laparoscopy patients required conversion to an open procedure due to bleeding (4; two major and two minor), technical problems with the instrument (n = 1) and difficulty in the dissection (n = 3). RESULTS: The demographic data, percentages of right and left nephrectomy, number of vessels, rates of acute rejection episodes, as well as the rates of urologic and vascular complications were similar between the two groups. The time of hospital stay was shorter, and the duration of the operation and of the warm ischemia time were significantly longer for the LDN group. The postoperative decline in serum creatinine levels were similar for the two groups. Graft survival rates were 91.7% at both the first and third years in the LDN group; 92.5% and 87.0% for the ODN group, a difference that was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: LDN is as efficient and safe as ODN for donors, recipients, and grafts.     

Laparoscopic vs open living donor nephrectomy: a contemporary series from one centre

OBJECTIVE: To report our experience of laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy (LDN) vs open donor nephrectomy (ODN), as LDN offers potential advantages to the donor and has become a routine procedure for live kidney procurement worldwide. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between February 2000 and August 2005 we performed 183 donor-recipient operations at our institution (ODN, 83; LDN, 100). We prospectively collected information on all donors and recipients for the same period to audit our experience with the first 100 LDNs. Patients made their operative choice after discussions that included unit experience and published information. We present our findings with the emphasis on donor operative details and early recipient graft outcome. RESULTS: Donor and recipient age, gender, body mass index, human leukocyte antigen mismatches, and vascular anastomotic times did not differ significantly between the groups. There were two conversions to an open operation in the LND group; neither affected recipient-graft outcome. The mean (sd) operative duration was 178 (38) min for the LDN and 159 (34) min for the ODN (P < 0.05). The mean (sd) hospital stay was 4.7 (1.2) days in the LND group and 6.8 (1.5) days in the ODN group (P < 0.05). There was one case of delayed graft function in both groups. Serum creatinine levels at 1, 6 and 12 months after transplantation did not differ significantly between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our contemporaneous series shows the safe introduction of a laparoscopic living-donor programme without compromising donor patient safety or allograft outcome.     

Comparison of laparoscopic and open donor nephrectomy: a randomized controlled trial

Authors from Iran compare various outcomes between laparoscopic and open donor nephrectomy in kidney transplantation; they carried out a large comparative trial, and found that laparoscopic donor nephrectomy gave better donor satisfaction and morbidity, with equivalent graft outcome. OBJECTIVE: To compare the graft survival, donor and recipient outcome, donor satisfaction, and complications of laparoscopic (LDN) and open donor nephrectomy (ODN) in kidney transplantation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a randomized controlled trial, 100 cases each of LDN and ODN were compared. We modified the standard LDN procedure to make it less expensive. RESULTS: The mean (sd) operative duration was 152.2 (33.9) min for ODN and 270.8 (58.5) min for LDN, and the mean duration of kidney warm ischaemia was 1.87 min for ODN and 8.7 min for LDN. Only one LDN required conversion to ODN because of bleeding. The mean follow-up in the LDN and ODN groups was not significantly different (406.1 vs 403.8 days). The mean (sd) score for donor satisfaction was 17.3 (3.5) for ODN and 19.6 (1.0) for LDN. The rate of ureteric complications was 2% for ODN and none for LDN. As determined by serum creatinine levels at 3, 21-30, 90, 180 and 365 days after surgery, graft function was not significantly different between ODN and LDN. Long-term graft survival was 93.8% for LDN and 92.7% for ODN. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to ODN, LDN was associated with greater donor satisfaction, less morbidity and equivalent graft outcome.     

Laparoscopic versus open donor nephrectomy: comparing ureteral complications in the recipients and improving the laparoscopic technique.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (LDN) is a recently developed procedure, the performance of which needs to be studied. Given the reported advantages in the donors, this study looks at graft outcome and ureteral complications in recipients of kidneys procured by open donor nephrectomy (ODN) versus LDN. METHODS: The LDN recipients consisted of 193 patients since 3/27/96. A total of 168 ODN recipients from 1991 to 1998 served as controls. Immunosuppression protocols were similar for both groups. RESULTS: Two-year graft survival for LDN and ODN was 98% and 96%, respectively. Two-year patient survival for LDN and ODN was 98% and 97%, respectively. The incidence of delayed graft function and mean serum creatinine at 3 and 12 months was similar in both groups. However, the number of ureteral complications that required operative repair was significantly higher for LDN recipients compared to ODN recipients, 7.7% (n=15) vs. 0.6% (n=1) respectively (P=0.03). Ureteral stenting was required in an additional 3.1% (n=6) of LDN and 2.4% (n=4) of ODN (P=NS). There was, however, a learning curve with time. For the first 130 LDN patients, a total of 20 ureteral complications were recorded, whereas only one occurred in the more recent 63 patients (P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: The higher ureteral complication rate in LDN recipients has improved over time as technical causes have been identified. We have noted significant improvement in ureteral viability by using the endogastrointestinal anastomosis instrument on the ureter and peri-ureteral tissue. LDN is therefore an excellent alternative to ODN. Identification of hazards unique to this technique is critical before its broader application.     

Comparison of laparoscopic and open donor nephrectomy: UK experience

A comparison of laparoscopic and open donor nephrectomy is presented by authors from the UK. They found that the laparoscopic approach could safely be offered to patients treated in experienced units and after adequate training fo the surgeon, with no increase in complications or decrease in efficacy. OBJECTIVE: To compare our early experience of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) with a contemporary cohort of conventional open donor nephrectomy (ODN). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Transperitoneal left-sided LDN was offered to carefully selected potential live kidney donors on the basis of vascular anatomy. The first 20 donors who underwent LDN were compared with a control group of 20 patients who had ODN. Donors and recipients were compared for demographics, intraoperative variables, postoperative complications and allograft function. RESULTS: There was no peri-operative mortality in either group. No laparoscopic procedure required open conversion. The operating time was comparable (165 vs 153 min); LDN was associated with significantly less intraoperative blood loss (200 vs 350 mL; Mann-Whitney U, P = 0.01) and hospital stay (3 vs 5 days; P < 0.001). The graft warm ischaemic time was significantly longer for LDN (5 vs 2 min; P < 0.001) but this did not appear to affect either the delayed graft function rate (5% vs 10%, not significant) or serum creatinine level at discharge (125 vs 126 micromol/L). CONCLUSIONS: UK centres with experience of advanced laparoscopy and ODN can safely offer LDN to potential live donors.     

腹腔镜技术获取活体供肾的基础研究

目的探讨建立小猪腹腔镜活体供肾切取和原位肾移植模型的可行性以及CO2气腹对小猪移植肾功能恢复及组织形态的影响。方法 40头滇南小耳猪经配型分为CO2气腹腹腔镜活体供肾切取组（LDN组,n=20）和开放活体供肾切取组（ODN组,n=20）,每组供、受体均为10头;两组分别采用腹腔镜和开放手术经腹膜后入路切取供肾后行原位肾移植。术后监测尿量、血清肌酐（SCr）及血尿素氮（BUN）;术后30d切取移植肾组织制作石蜡切片用于组织病理检查。结果 LDN组和ODN组均成功建立6例小猪原位肾移植模型,移植成功率均为60%（6/10）。LDN组和ODN组热缺血时间分别为（89±6）s和（30±11）s,差异有统计学意义（t=11.53,P〈0.05）。术后第3天LDN组和ODN组SCr分别为（152±16）μmol/L和（126±8）μmol/L,BUN分别为（7.26±0.99）mmol/L和（2.87±0.39）mmol/L,差异均有统计学意义（F=11.003,P〈0.05;F=6.303,P〈0.05）;术后第7天LDN组和ODN组SCr分别为（121±5）μmol/L和（89±10）μmol/L,BUN分别为（2.87±0.39）mmol/L和（1.63±0.38）mmol/L,差异均有统计学意义（F=48.301,P〈0.05;F=31.719,P〈0.05）。移植肾组织病理检查结果：HE染色显示LDN组移植肾肾小管上皮细胞损伤、肾间质水肿及炎性细胞浸润较ODN组稍重,但差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）;过碘酸-Schiff染色及Masson染色显示两组移植肾病理改变无特异性。结论腹腔镜活体供肾切取术可影响移植肾的早期恢复,但对术后晚期移植肾功能及病理改变的影响与开放活体供肾切取术比较无差异。建立小猪经腹膜后入路腹腔镜活体供肾切取和原位肾移植模型具有可行性。     

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: impact on an established renal transplant program

The current disparity of viable organs and patients in need of a transplant has been an impetus for innovative measures. Live donor renal transplantation offers significant advantages compared with cadaveric donor transplantation: increased graft and patient survival, diminution in incidence of delayed graft function, acute tubular necrosis (ATN), and reduction in waiting time. Notwithstanding these gains live donors continue to be underutilized and account for only approximately one quarter of all renal transplants performed in the United States. It has been felt that inherent disincentives to live donation have slowed its growth. These include degree and duration of postoperative pain and convalescence, child care concerns, cosmetic concerns, and time until return to full activities and employment. In an attempt to curtail the disincentives to live donation, laparoscopic live donation (laparoscopic donor nephrectomy; LDN) was developed. The purpose of this study was to compare the results of our first 25 laparoscopic nephrectomies (performed over a 10-month period from September 1998 through July 1999) with the previous 25 standard open donor nephrectomies (ODNs) completed over the past 3 years. We conducted a retrospective review of all donor nephrectomies and recipient pairs performed over the past 3 years. End points included sex, operative time, length of stay, immediate and long-term renal function, and willingness to donate. There were no differences in demographics of the ODN versus the LDN group. The average length of stay was 2.48+/-0.72 days for the LDN versus 4.08+/-0.28 days for the ODN. ODN and LDN have comparable short- and long-term function with no delayed graft function and no complications. Growth of living donor transplant has increased from 16 per cent of all kidney transplants performed in 1995 to 23 per cent in 1999. We conclude that LDN is a viable alternative to the standard donor operation. LDN has had a positive impact on the donor pool by minimizing disincentives to live donation. With the initiation of our laparoscopic program the number of LDNs has increased. Presently the live donor pool is the most viable alternative to significantly increase the number of kidneys for transplantation.     

A comparison of traditional open,minimal-incision donor nephrectomy and laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) and minimal-incision donor nephrectomy (MILD) are less invasive procedures than the traditional open donor nephrectomy approach (ODN). This study compares donor and recipient outcome following those three different procedures. Sixty consecutive donor nephrectomies were studied (n=20 in each group). Intra-operative variables, analgesic requirements, donor recovery, donor/recipient complications and allograft function were recorded prospectively. Operating and first warm ischaemia times were longer for LDN than for ODN and MILD (232±35 vs 121±24 vs 147±27 min, P<0.001; 4±1 vs 2±2 vs 2±1 min, P<0.01). Postoperative morphine requirements were significantly higher after ODN than after MILD and LDN (182±113 vs 86±48 vs 71±45 mg; P<0.0001). There was no episode of delayed graft function in this study. Donors returned to work quicker after LDN than after ODN and MILD (6±2 vs 11±5 vs 10±7; P=0.055). Donor and recipient complication rates and recipient allograft function were comparable. We concluded that MILD and LDN reduce postoperative pain and allow a faster recovery without compromising recipient outcome.     

Early and late recipient graft function and donor outcome after laparoscopic vs open adult live donor nephrectomy for pediatric renal transplantation

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopically procured live donor kidney grafts are increasingly transplanted into pediatric recipients. The safety and efficacy of this changed surgical practice are unknown. HYPOTHESIS: Outcomes of laparoscopic vs open donor grafts in recipients 18 years and younger are equivalent. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective review at an academic tertiary care referral center. PATIENTS: Eleven consecutive pediatric recipients of laparoscopically procured kidneys between April 1, 1997, and December 31, 2001, were pair matched for age with 11 recipients of openly procured kidneys between December 1, 1991, and March 31, 1997; the 22 adult donors were also studied. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Recipients: surgical complications, graft function and survival. Donors: perioperative morbidity and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: Twenty (91%) of 22 kidneys were donated by a parent of the recipient. In recipients of laparoscopically procured grafts, we observed significantly lower creatinine clearances and higher creatinine levels on days 1, 4, and 6, but by 1 month, graft function was similar in both groups. No significant differences in surgical complications, delayed function, acute and chronic rejection, and graft survival rates were found. No laparoscopic or open donor required blood transfusion, reoperation, or hospital readmission. One laparoscopic donor (9%) was converted to open nephrectomy. For laparoscopic vs open donors, median operative time was longer (difference, 67 min; P =.08), but median postoperative length of stay was significantly shorter (3 vs 5 days; P =.02). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy has no adverse impact on pediatric recipient outcomes. For donors, the laparoscopic operation is safe and the hospital stay is shortened. These results support the continued use of laparoscopically procured live donor kidneys in pediatric renal transplantation.     

Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy--is it safe?

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (LDN) is a less invasive alternative to open nephrectomy (ODN) for living kidney donation. Concerns have been raised regarding the safety of LDN, the short and long term function of kidneys removed by LDN, and a potential higher incidence of urologic complications in LDN transplant recipients. METHODS: Between October 1997 and May 1999, 80 LDNs were performed at our center. All patients were followed longitudinally with office visits and telephone interviews. These LDNs were compared with 50 ODN performed from January 1996 to October 1997. RESULTS: LDN procedures took significantly longer than ODN (4.6 vs. 3.1 hr). However, LDN was associated with significant reduction in i.v. narcotic use, a rapid return to diet, and shorter hospital stay. Of the 80 LDN procedures, a total of 75 (94%) were completed laparoscopically. Five patients were converted to laparotomy: three for hemorrhage and two for complex vascular anatomy. ODN conversion was associated with large donor body habitus and/or obesity. Seven LDN patients had minor complications and 4 had major complications. All major complications consisted of vascular injuries (2 lumbar vein injuries, 1 renal artery, and 1 aortic injury). All patients made complete recoveries. All LDN kidneys functioned immediately posttransplant. We have observed 100% patient and 97% 1-year actuarial graft survival in LDN transplant recipients. There have been no short-or long-term urologic complications in this series. CONCLUSION: With increasing experience and standardization of technique, LDN is a safe and effective procedure. Patients undergoing LDN demonstrate clinically significant, more rapid postoperative recoveries and shorter hospital stays than ODN patients. Excellent initial graft function and long-term graft survival have been observed with LDN kidneys. Urologic complications can be avoided. LDN has become the preferred surgical approach for living kidney donation at our center.     

A Necessary Step Toward Kidney Donor Safety: The Transition From Locking Polymer Clips to Transfixion Techniques in Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy

Donor safety is of paramount importance in addressing end-stage renal failure through living kidney transplantation. The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a Class II recall on the use of Hem-o-lok (Teleflex, Limerick, Pennsylvania, United States) polymer clips on the renal artery in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) in June 2006 following 3 reported cases of donor deaths secondary to slipped ligature. The National University Hospital of Singapore made the transition regarding hilar control in minimally invasive donor nephrectomy, from using polymer and titanium clips to transfixion techniques (pure or hand-assisted laparoscopic) via laparoscopic staples or intracorporeal suturing, respectively. This study assessed safety during the transition in arterial transfixion techniques in minimally invasive donor nephrectomy for both donors and recipients. Forty-five consecutive kidney donors underwent donor nephrectomy over a 2-year period starting from June 2010. A total of 37 donors who underwent LDN (pure laparoscopic or hand-assisted laparoscopic) were included in the analysis. Of the 37 patients, 23 kidney donors had renal arterial control using Hem-o-lok while 14 patients from November 2011 onward underwent transfixion of the renal artery. The 2 groups of donor who underwent renal arterial control by either clips ligature or transfixion technique were comparable. The outcomes for the recipients in each group were similar with no statistical difference between postoperative creatinine level, incidence of delayed graft function, or graft survival at 1 year. We conclude that the transition in renal arterial control technique to transfixion techniques in LDN in line with FDA recommendation is feasible and affords equivalent donor and recipient outcomes.     

Renal transplantation from elderly living donors

A worldwide shortage of cadaveric donors has led to the increased utilization of elderly living donors, with controversial results. In an attempt to assess the effect of donor age on graft survival and subsequent renal function, we analyzed our clinical results in 276 consecutive recipients of living related renal transplants spanning both the cyclosporine and the azathioprine eras, of whom a total of 44 recipients received kidneys from donors over 55 years old. All recipients were otherwise similar in age, race, haplotype mismatch, number of retransplants, and number of pretransplant transfusions, apart from an increased number of diabetics among the CsA-treated recipients of elderly kidneys (38% vs. 14%). The cumulative patient and graft survival rates at 1 and 5 years were independent of donor age whether CsA or AZA was utilized. Nor was the incidence of rejection or infection significantly different in the older donor group when compared with the younger cohort. Short-term and intermediate-term renal function, as assessed by serum creatinine, was however poorer but stable in the older donor group when compared with the younger one. The mean serum creatinine levels at 1 year in the CsA- and AZA-treated recipients of kidneys from older donors were 2.4 and 2.0 mg/dl, respectively, compared with 1.6 and 1.4 mg/dl, respectively, when the donor age was less than 55 years (P less than 0.001). Since renal function at the end of the first posttransplant year is considered a determinant of long-term graft survival, this is a cause for concern, but in view of the universal shortage of organs and the negligible morbidity to donors, renal transplantation from elderly living donors remains an acceptable practice.     

Change in Renal Function After Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy for Kidney Transplantation

Background

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) has become the method of choice for living-donor kidney transplantation. However, LDN may result in decreased renal function in the donor, and risk of end-stage renal failure has been reported.

Objective

To evaluate changes in renal function after LDN.

Patients and Methods

The study included 51 living donors of renal transplants between March 2002 and December 2008. Before kidney donation, we computed the initial function of the kidney preserved in the donor using 24-hour creatinine clearance (Ccr) and functional ratio as revealed at technetium 99m dimercaptosuccinic acid renal scanning. After kidney donation, serum creatinine concentration (sCr) and Ccr were calculated on postoperative day 2 and every 3 months thereafter.

Results

After LDN, mean sCr increased immediately, from 0.90 to 1.31, as did Ccr of the kidney preserved in the donor, from 58.2 to 79.6, a 36.9% increase. A greater percent increase in function was observed in younger donors and those with lower initial Ccr of the preserved kidney. Although 9.8% of donors demonstrated slightly decreased renal function of the preserved kidney at last follow-up, renal function was adequately preserved in most donors.

Conclusion

Younger donors and those with lower initial function of the preserved kidney before nephrectomy demonstrate a greater increase in function after nephrectomy. Age might be a risk factor for decreased renal function after LDN. Older potential living donors may need more careful evaluation before kidney donation.     

Increased rates of donation with laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of laparoscopic nephrectomy and recipient education on the proportion of kidney recipients who could identify a potential live donor, and on the live donor (LD) transplantation rate. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) results in less postoperative surgical pain, a shorter hospital stay, and quicker recovery than the standard open donor nephrectomy (ODN). The authors hypothesized that the availability of this less invasive surgical technique would enhance the willingness of family and friends to donate. METHODS: The study population consisted of 3,298 end-stage renal disease patients referred for kidney transplant evaluation between November 1991 and February 2000, divided into three groups. The first group received no formal LD education and had only ODN available. The second group received formal education about the LD process and had only ODN available. The third group had both formal LD education and LDN available. Records were examined to determine what proportion of each group had any potential donors tissue-typed, and the rate at which they received an LD transplant. RESULTS: Before LDN availability and formal LD education, only 35.1% of referrals found a potential donor, and only 12.2% received an LD transplant within 3 years. Institution of a formal education program increased the volunteer rate to 39.0%, and 16.5% received an LD transplant. When LDN became available, 50% of patients were able to find at least one potential donor, and within 3 years 24.7% received an LD transplant. Regression analysis indicated that availability of LDN was independently associated with a 1.9 relative risk of receiving an LD transplant. Kaplan-Meier death-censored 1- and 3-year graft survival rates for ODN transplants were 95.8% and 90.6%, versus 97.5% and 94. 8% for LDN. CONCLUSIONS: The availability of LDN and an LD family education program has doubled the live donor transplantation rate, and outcomes remain excellent.     

Kuwait experience in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: first 80 cases

INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) has been adopted rapidly as it offers less postoperative pain, early recovery, and better cosmetic results compared with the open approach. This prospective study investigated the results of the first 80 LDN performed between May 2005 and May 2006, with regard to donor morbidity and effect on graft function. PATIENTS AND METHODS: LDN was attempted in 80 donors by one surgical team. Donors included 68 men and 12 women, ages 22 to 53 years, with body mass indices of 17.9 to 42.4. According to computed tomographic angiography, left nephrectomy was planned in 75 donors and right nephrectomy in 5. RESULTS: LDN was completed successfully in 74 (92.5%) and converted to open in 6 (7.5%) secondary to technical difficulties and operative bleeding. The mean operating time for LDN was 186.16 minutes (range, 95-260 minutes). Mean warm ischemia time (WIT) was 5.7 minutes (range 2-16 minutes). Mean hospital stay was 5.28 days (range, 3-14 days). Two donors (2.5%) were reexplored for postoperative bleeding. Renal function in all donors was satisfactory within 3 months of surgery. Immediate diuresis occurred in 76 (95%) recipients. Acute cellular rejection was diagnosed in 1 recipient. No association was observed between WIT, graft function, development of acute tubular necrosis (ATN), or rejection. Plasma creatinine normalization was clearly associated with donor age. CONCLUSIONS: LDN was found to be a safe procedure with low postoperative morbidity and short recovery time for donors. It can potentially increase the donor pool.     

Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: Current practice and results of renal transplantation

Objective: In 2009, 1659 patients with end‐stage renal failure in Hong Kong were waiting for a renal transplant. The overall number of renal transplants carried out locally remains low, with an even lower number being live donor donations. Yet, live donor kidney transplantation yields results that are consistently superior to those of deceased donor kidney transplantation, and laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) is increasingly accepted worldwide as a safe and preferred surgical option. We aim to evaluate the outcome of LDN in our setting, and to compare with that of deceased donors in this retrospective review. Patients and Methods: A total of 12 patients received LDN over the study period of 2006–2009. Standard left transperitoneal LDN was carried out. Grafts including three with double vessels were prepared using the bench technique. The postoperative outcomes up to 1 year for both the donors and the recipients were studied. Contemporary results for the 47 deceased donor kidneys were studied and compared. Results: All donors had an eventful recovery. The operating time was 225.0 ± 67.4 min. The hospital stay was 5.6 ± 2.3 days. The recipient outcomes including hospital stay and creatinine levels at discharge and 1 year were 11 days, 121 umol/L and 116 umol/L, respectively. Specifically, no ureteric stricture or graft loss was noted at the 1‐year follow up. Recipient complications included haematoma (1 patient), renal artery stenosis (1 patient) and redo of vascular anastomosis (1 patient). In contrast, the deceased donor graft recipients had a hospital stay of 11 days, and creatinine levels of 205 umol/L on discharge and 205 umol/L at 1 year, respectively. The delayed graft function rates for the live donor and deceased donors group were 0% and 14.9%, whereas the 1‐year graft survival rates were 100% and 87.2% respectively. Conclusion: The results showed that the donor morbidity rate was low, as reflected by the short hospital stay. Also, the overall parameters of recipients were good. In particular, no ureteric stricture was noted, and graft survival was 100% at 1 year. Living donor kidney transplant program using the laparoscopic technique is a viable option to improve the pool of kidneys for transplantation.