Living donor nephrectomy

The need for more organs for kidney transplantation is increasing. Cadaver sources for these organs are stable, therefore living donation must increase if the need is to be met. Less perfect kidneys are now being transplanted. The pool of potential donors is being expanded. The process of kidney donation is being made easier in an effort to increase the number of donors. The donor work-up is being streamlined. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy has been introduced, and appears to be promising as a technique of lessening donor pain and suffering, while maintaining excellent graft results.     

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

Background: Kidney transplantation is a definitive treatment of end‐stage renal disease. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) has been widely accepted around the world since its introduction in 1995 as a minimum invasive procedure. We report our clinical experience of 141 consecutive LDNs performed in two tertiary hospitals in Western Australia. Methods: From December 2000 (Royal Perth Hospital) and January 2005 (Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital) to January 2009, 141 LDNs were performed in two tertiary hospitals by four urologists. All donors underwent rigorous work‐up prior to surgery. Donor age ranged from 23 years to 81 years (49.85 ± 11.30 years). The male to female ratio was 1 to 1.3. Donor body mass index (BMI) was 26.77 ± 4.31, and glomerular filtration rate was 96.25 ± 12.33 mL/min/1.73 sqm. The laparoscopic technique was transperitoneal approach exclusively. Results: All LDNs were performed successfully without hand a ssistance. The warm ischaemic time ranged from 3 to 11 min. The hospital stay was 4.16 ± 1.30 days. The overall complication rate was 17.0%, with three major complications (2.1%): a splenetic infarction, a chylous ascites and a pulmonary embolism occurred. Donors' demographic data (age, sex, BMI, side of surgery) did not show a statistically significant association with surgical complications. Conclusions: Transperitoneal laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy is a safe and effective procedure. Combined use of vascular stapler and Hem‐o‐Lok is very important for management of the renal artery stump. It is our current practice to administer anticoagulants during and post‐surgery for at least 2 weeks.     

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

Since it first was performed in 1995, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) has grown to be the standard of care in most transplant centers in the United States. This article reviews the current indications, selection criteria, surgical approaches, outcomes, and complications of LDN.     

Cadaver donor nephrectomy

Optimal preservation of renal and ureteral structure and function is attempted by maintenance of renal circulation during heart-beating cadaver nephrectomy. Modifications of Ackermann's en bloc procedure for removal of cadaver kidneys are suggested to adapt this procedure to the heart-beating cadaver situation.     

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

BACKGROUND: Living kidney donation represents an important source of organs for patients with end-stage renal failure. Over the past decade, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy has replaced the conventional open procedure in many transplant centres. Using evidence-based methods, this study examines the current status of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. METHOD: A Medline literature search (PubMed database, 1999-2002) and manual cross-referencing were performed to identify all articles relating to laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Safety and efficacy criteria were analysed systematically for each study. Studies included were categorized using an evidence-based level grading system. RESULTS: Of 687 publications, 20 studies with level I-II evidence and 12 with level III evidence were analysed. Only one level I study could be identified. Level I and level II evidence suggests superiority of the laparoscopic approach in regard to postoperative analgesic consumption, hospital stay and return to work. Other safety and efficacy criteria, including donor and recipient outcomes, were similar between the two techniques. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy has gained community acceptance by physicians and patients over the past decade. Despite a lack of strong evidence, such as large prospective randomized studies, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is likely to become the 'gold standard' for donor nephrectomy in the near future.     

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

Live donor renal transplantation provides significant advantages when compared with cadaveric renal transplantation. Unfortunately, there are disincentives associated with donation including prolonged hospitalization, significant postoperative pain, and prolonged convalescence. With the advent of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy, there has been an increase in live donation at centers performing the procedure secondary. Incentives provided by laparoscopic donation include a reduction in hospital stay, less postoperative analgesic requirements, and an earlier return to normal daily activities. Most importantly, graft function and survival are equivalent to open live donation. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is evolving to become the preferred method of procuring living donor kidneys.     

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

Background Several large series of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) have been published, largely focusing on immediate results and short-term complications. The aim of this study was to examine the results of LDN and collect medium-term and long-term donor followup. Methods We examined the results of two surgeons who performed 500 consecutive LDNs from 1996 to 2005. Prospective databases were reviewed for both donors and recipients to record demographics, medical history, intraoperative events, and complications. Patients were followed between 1 month and 9 years after surgery to assess for delayed complications, especially hypertension, renal insufficiency, incisional hernia, bowel obstruction, and chronic pain. Results Left kidneys were procured in 86.2% of cases. Mean operative time was 3.5 h, and warm ischemia time averaged 3.4 min. Hand-assistance was used in 13.8%, and conversion rate was 1.8%. Intraoperative complication rate was 5.8% and was predominantly bleeding (93.1%). Most (86.2%) of the operative complications occurred during the initial 150 cases of a surgeon, compared with 10.3% in the subsequent 150 cases (p = 0.003). Operative time decreased by 87 min after the initial 150 cases (p < 0.001). Immediate graft survival was 97.5%. Delayed graft function occurred in 3.0% of recipients, and acute tubular necrosis occurred in 7.0%. Thirty-day donor complication rate was 9.8%. Mean donor creatinine was 1.24 on the first postoperative day, 1.27 at 2 weeks, and 1.24 at 1 year. At a mean followup of 32.8 months, long-term donor complications consisted of 11 cases of hypertension, 9 cases of prolonged pain or paresthesia, 2 incisional hernias, 1 small bowel obstruction requiring laparoscopic lysis of adhesions, and 1 hydrocele requiring repair. Conclusions LDN can be performed with acceptable immediate morbidity and excellent graft function. Operative time and complications decreased significantly after a surgeon performed 150 cases. Long-term complications were uncommon but included a likely underestimated incidence of hypertension.     

Hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: comparison to pure laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery is assumed to be easier to learn than the standard approach and simplifies intact kidney removal. Herein we have presented our experience performing hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN) compared with contemporary pure laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN). We retrospectively analyzed 55 patients who underwent LDN. Among the procedures, 21 were HALDN and 34 were pure LDN. We compared the two groups with regard to operative time, warm ischemic time (WIT), estimated blood loss, conversion rate, postoperative stay, and complications. For the HALDN group, the mean operative time was 191 minutes, WIT varied from 2 to 11 minutes, and bleeding estimates varied from 100 to 4000 mL. The overall complication rate of 28.6% included: vessel injury, urinary leakage, and paralytic ileus. In the LDN group, the mean operative time was 184 minutes, WIT varied from 2 to 10 minutes, and bleeding estimated varied 100 to 3000 mL. Three patients (8.8%) had complications including ureteral obstruction (n = 1) and vessel injury (n = 2). There was no significant difference between the two groups about the procedure and the complications. Our series suggested that HALDN and LDN were similar, with a tendency toward better results in LDN group, which also shows lower costs.     

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.     

Comparison of open live donor nephrectomy, laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy, and hand-assisted live donor nephrectomy: a cost-minimization analysis

BackgroundLive donor kidney transplantation is the treatment of choice for end-stage renal disease. Open donor nephrectomy (ODN) was the standard until the introduction of the laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) in 1995. Hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN) was added shortly thereafter. The laparoscopic techniques are associated with increased operating room times and equipment costs; however, these techniques speed patient return to normal activity. The aim of this study is to evaluate the cost of these techniques.Materials and MethodsA decision analysis model was developed to simulate outcomes for donors undergoing ODN, LDN, and HALDN. Outcomes were simulated from both the institutional perspective (IP) and the societal perspective (SP). Baseline values and ranges were determined from a systematic review of the literature. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test model strength.ResultsFrom the IP, ODN is the least costly strategy with a cost of $11,000, while the cost is $15,200 for HALDN and $15,800 for LDN. From the SP, HALDN is the least costly strategy costing $27,800, while the cost for LDN is $29,000 and for ODN is $41,000. In sensitivity analysis, ODN only became the dominant strategy if the days till return to work exceeded 58 in the HALDN strategy. LDN and HALDN were nearly equivalent as the rate of open conversion of LDN approached zero.ConclusionsHALDN is the least costly donor nephrectomy strategy, especially from the SP. The primary determinants of cost in this model are conversion to open and days till return to work.     

活体供肾移植:手助腹腔镜供肾切除优于常规腹腔镜供肾切除

目的　比较活体供肾移植中手助腹腔镜供肾切除 (Hand -assistedlaparoscopicdonornephrectomy ,HALDN)和完全腹腔镜活体供肾切除 (Laparoscopicdonornephrectomy,LDN)以及对供肾者和接受肾移植者的影响。　方法　回顾总结 1996年 10月～ 2 0 0 1年 2月MountSinai医学中心所有LDN和HALDN的病例资料。 1996年 10月开始行LDN手术 ,1999年 6月转而行HALDN手术。　结果　与LDN组相比 ,HALDN组手术时间明显缩短 ( ( 2 11± 7)minvs ( 2 5 7± 5 )min ,P <0 0 5 ) ,术中出血量明显减少 ( ( 12 2± 17)mlvs ( 2 86± 33)ml,P <0 0 5 ) ,肾脏热缺血时间明显缩短 ( ( 10 6± 6 )svs ( 2 5 7± 8)s,P <0 0 5 ) ,术后淋巴漏和血栓形成发生率 ( 0 %vs 13 7% ( 16例 ) ;2 5 % ( 2例 )vs 6 8% ( 8例 ) ,P <0 0 5 )明显下降。　结论　在活体供肾移植中 ,HALDN似乎优于LDN ,但尚需要前瞻性对照研究予以进一步证实。     

无气腹悬吊腹腔镜活体供者取肾术与开放手术的比较

目的：评价无气腹悬吊腹腔镜活体供者取肾手术（SGLLDN）的临床价值。方法：比较40例SGLLDN和32例开放活体供者取肾手术（OLDN）的临床效果。结果：SGLLDN组39例成功,转开放手术1例;OLDN组32例全部成功。SGLLDN与OLDN相比,切口长度较短,（8.0±2.3）cm vs（19.5±3.5）cm（P〈0.01）;手术时间较长,（120.1±16.2）min vs（60.5±12.1）min（P〈0.05）;术中出血量较少,（158.5±45.3）mL vs（289.2±65.1）mL（P〈0.01）;住院时间较短,分别（5.0±1.0）d vs（9.0±2.0）d（P〈0.05）;术中供肾热缺血时间和术后肾功能恢复正常时间二者差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。结论：与OLDN相比,SGLDN具有切口创伤小、出血少、患者恢复快、住院时间短等优点。缺点是手术时间稍长、费用稍贵。临床可根据不同供者要求选择不同手术方法。     

Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy offers numerous advantages when compared with the traditional open approach. For the donor, it has resulted in a shorter hospital stay, fewer postoperative analgesic requirements, earlier return to activities of daily living and employment, and decreased financial loss owing to absence from the workforce. For the recipient, the procedure does not adversely impact on allograft function, graft survival, or patient survival.