Antidiuretic hormone release during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

BACKGROUND: During laparoscopic procedures, increased intra-abdominal pressure may cause transient renal dysfunction due to impaired renal blood flow and induction of neurohormones. However, the relationship between antidiuretic hormone (ADH) secretion and increased intra-abdominal pressure is poorly understood. HYPOTHESIS: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) is associated with an increase in plasma ADH concentration, which influences renal function in both the donor and transplanted graft. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate plasma ADH levels during LDN and to correlate ADH levels with graft function. DESIGN AND INTERVENTIONS: In 30 patients who underwent LDN, plasma ADH levels were collected before insufflation, during surgery, after desufflation, and 24 hours after the procedure. In 6 patients who had open donor nephrectomy, blood samples were obtained as controls. Furthermore, graft function, operative characteristics, and clinical outcome were compared. SETTING: University hospital. RESULTS: In the LDN group, mean ADH levels during pneumoperitoneum and 30 minutes postinsufflation were significantly higher compared with preinsufflation values (P<.001). Twenty-four hours after LDN, mean ADH levels had returned to normal values. There were no significant differences in ADH levels in the open donor nephrectomy group. No significant differences in either intraoperative diuresis, blood pressure readings, or postoperative graft function were documented among the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, LDN was associated with an increase in plasma ADH that appeared to be related to increased intra-abdominal pressure. We conclude that the increased ADH concentrations during LDN are not associated with clinically significant changes in either the kidney donor or the transplanted graft.     

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.     

Methods of vascular control during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

Vascular control during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) requires expeditious control of the renal artery and vein while preserving maximum graft vascular length. The vascular stapler with three rows of staples on either side of the division has been widely used, but it loses more vascular length than other methods. In the accompanying video, we illustrate vascular control with the different staplers and locking polymer clips. The techniques include two nonabsorbable polymer ligating clips (10-mm Hem-o-Lok; MLX Weck Closure Systems), the Endo-GIA Universal stapler (35-mm length, 2.5-mm staples; Autosuture), and the Endo-TA 30 stapler (30-mm length, 2.5-mm staples; Autosuture). In an in-vitro study, we previously determined that the Endo-TA 30 stapler and the polymer clips resulted in significantly less compromise of the vessel length compared with the other methods of vascular control. LDN has been recently included by the clip manufacturer as a contraindication for the use of the polymer locking clips. The Endo TA stapler can be used when preservation of maximum graft vascular length is important.     

Hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

Background: The hand-assisted approach to laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) might minimize the learning curve and shorten both the operation and the warm ischemia time. Our initial results from hand-assisted LDN are presented and compared with data from the literature. Methods: From January to September 2000, ten hand-assisted LDNs of the right kidney were performed. Results: The median operation time was 140 min (range, 120--400 min), and the warm ischemia time was 2.5 min (range, 1--4 min). There were no conversions. Postoperative morbidity included one urinary tract infection. All but one patient returned to a normal diet within 48 h. Opiates were needed a maximum of 48 h. One recipient experienced initial loss of graft function as a result of unknown causes. Conclusions: Even at the beginning of the learning curve, operation time and warm ischemia time are significantly reduced by the hand-assisted approach, as compared with conventional LDN. apd: 3 April 2001     

Terminal hand-assist for laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) has become widely popular in developed countries but not so in developing countries. One explanation for this maybe the difficulty in getting access devices due to the prohibitive cost. We report our method of terminal hand-assisted LDN in which successful donor nephrectomy is feasible without expensive access devices. METHOD: The patient is placed in the corresponding classic renal surgery position. Three ports are placed for left-sided and four for right-sided LDN. After complete mobilization of the kidney laparoscopically, the assistant's right hand is introduced for left-sided LDN through a 7-cm left lower quadrant transverse muscle-splitting incision. For right-sided LDN, the surgeon's right hand is inserted through a corresponding ipsilateral incision (for right-handed surgeons). A simple method to prevent the leakage of pneumoperitoneum is described. The hand inside the abdomen aids in the final steps and completes the extraction of the kidney swiftly. Manual mopping, lavage, and hemostasis are also possible. RESULTS: Five cases of LDN at our centre were done in this fashion, four on the left side and one on the right. The mean kidney retrieval time after clamping the renal artery was 3:18 +/- 0:46 minutes (range 2:30 to 4:30). Postoperative stay was 4 to 5 days. Recipient serum creatinine normalized within 3 to 4 days. CONCLUSIONS: Short duration terminal hand-assist for LDN without any special access device is possible without the fear of excessive gas leakage. It is helpful to reduce prolonged warm ischemia and to relieve the surgeon's apprehension, at least in the initial learning phase of LDN.     

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。     

Non-invasive monitoring of tissue oxygenation during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

Background

A surgical resection is currently the preferred treatment for esophageal cancer if the tumor is considered to be resectable without evidence of distant metastases (cT1-3 N0-1 M0). A high percentage of irradical resections is reported in studies using neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery versus surgery alone and in trials in which patients are treated with surgery alone. Improvement of locoregional control by using neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy might therefore improve the prognosis in these patients. We previously reported that after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with weekly administrations of Carboplatin and Paclitaxel combined with concurrent radiotherapy nearly always a complete R0-resection could be performed. The concept that this neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy regimen improves overall survival has, however, to be proven in a randomized phase III trial.

Methods/design

The CROSS trial is a multicenter, randomized phase III, clinical trial. The study compares neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery with surgery alone in patients with potentially curable esophageal cancer, with inclusion of 175 patients per arm. The objectives of the CROSS trial are to compare median survival rates and quality of life (before, during and after treatment), pathological responses, progression free survival, the number of R0 resections, treatment toxicity and costs between patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery with surgery alone for surgically resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma. Over a 5 week period concurrent chemoradiotherapy will be applied on an outpatient basis. Paclitaxel (50 mg/m2) and Carboplatin (Area-Under-Curve = 2) are administered by i.v. infusion on days 1, 8, 15, 22, and 29. External beam radiation with a total dose of 41.4 Gy is given in 23 fractions of 1.8 Gy, 5 fractions a week. After completion of the protocol, patients will be followed up every 3 months for the first year, every 6 months for the second year, and then at the end of each year until 5 years after treatment. Quality of life questionnaires will be filled out during the first year of follow-up.

Discussion

This study will contribute to the evidence on any benefits of neoadjuvant treatment in esophageal cancer patients using a promising chemoradiotherapy regimen.

Trial registration

ISRCTN80832026     

Hand assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a comparison with the open approach.

PURPOSE: Hand assisted laparoscopy combines aspects of open and laparoscopic surgery. A hand in the abdomen may facilitate laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy, allowing more urologists to participate. We report and compare our initial series of hand assisted laparoscopy donor nephrectomy with nephrectomy performed by standard open methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the last 18 months 60 patients at 2 institutions underwent hand assisted laparoscopy donor nephrectomy. This cohort was compared to a contemporary group of 31 patients who underwent open donor nephrectomy via a flank incision at our 2 institutions. Demographic and outcome data were compared retrospectively in a nonrandomized fashion in the 2 groups. RESULTS: Demographic data on patient age, male-to-female ratio and body mass index were similar in the 2 groups. Operative time, transfusion rate, time to oral intake and complications were also similar. However, estimated blood loss, change in hematocrit preoperatively to postoperatively, hospitalization, parenteral and oral narcotic requirement, and donor convalescence were significantly less in the hand assisted laparoscopy versus open groups. In terms of allograft function, nadir creatinine, time to nadir creatinine, creatinine clearance at 6, 12, and 18 months, delayed graft function, episodes of acute rejection and ureteral stricture were similar in the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Hand assisted laparoscopy is safe, efficacious and reproducible for living related donor nephrectomy. Compared with the open technique hand assisted laparoscopy provides the donor with significantly decreased postoperative morbidity, while enabling excellent allograft function. Further randomized prospective studies are warranted.     

Hand-assisted laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy

BACKGROUND: Hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HLDN) may have advantages over laparoscopic donor nephrectomy, such as shorter learning curve, operation and warm ischaemia times. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of HLDN. METHODS: Between January 2000 and October 2002, 50 consecutive HLDN procedures were performed through a low transverse abdominal incision, 23 right sided and 27 left sided. RESULTS: The median age of the donors was 44 years. No HLDN required conversion to an open procedure. The median operating time for HLDN was 153 min. The median warm ischaemia time was 3 (range 1.0-4.5) min and the median blood loss was 50 (range 20-500) ml in both left- and right-sided procedures. Eight patients suffered ten minor complications during their admission. The duration of hospital stay was 5 days for donors. Three recipients developed graft failure owing to acute rejection, renal vein thrombosis and ischaemic necrosis. CONCLUSION: Both left- and right-sided HLDN procedures were feasible and safe through a low transverse abdominal incision.     

Techniques in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Innovations in laparoscopic surgery have provided transplant surgeons with a range of techniques as well as a vast array of minimally invasive instruments. Whilst randomized control trials have compared open and laparoscopic donor nephrectomy, there is a paucity of high quality data comparing different laparoscopic approaches. This article summarizes the main techniques of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy currently in use and reviews the evidence available for each. In addition, controversial aspects of donor nephrectomy are examined, including the technological advances applicable to this operation. Increasing numbers of living donor kidney transplants are being performed worldwide, and the majority of donor operations are now laparoscopic. Transperitoneal ‘pure’ and hand‐assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy are the two most commonly performed procedures, although retroperitoneal approaches are advocated by some centres. Controversy persists with respect to the technical aspects of donor nephrectomy, including both the approach and the method of ligation of the hilar vessels. More recently, robot‐assisted, laparo‐endoscopic single site surgery (LESS) and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) ‐assisted donor nephrectomy have also been performed, further increasing the number of options available, but creating uncertainty as to the ideal approach.     

Rhabdomyolysis after laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

Rhabdomyolysis is a postoperative complication that may result in acute renal failure owing to excessive myoglobinuria. After uncomplicated laparoscopic left transperitoneal donor nephrectomy, a 32-year-old man developed anuric acute renal failure secondary to postoperative rhabdomyolysis that required intermittent hemodialysis for 2 weeks. The presumed risk factors in this case were the patient's high body mass index, intraoperative flank position with flexion, a solitary kidney, and the duration of surgery. Our current surgical technique has been modified to drop the kidney bridge early, immediately after visualization of the hilum.     

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy for kidney transplantation

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive laparoscopic nephrectomy is a well-established alternative to open surgery in living donors for kidney transplantation. Donor mortality and morbidity rates as well as recipient outcome are comparable to the open approach. Furthermore, the procedure is associated with reduced donor discomfort, faster recovery, and improved cosmetic results. Recently, an advanced robotic system for laparoscopic surgery was approved for use in the United States. This system allows a greater freedom of movement and recreates the hand-eye coordination and three-dimensional vision that is lost in standard laparoscopic procedures. METHODS: We report the first 12 successful cases of robotic-assisted laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy performed using the da Vinci Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Mountain View, CA). RESULTS: Our initial experience has shown that the system allows the performance of donor nephrectomy in a safe and accurate fashion. CONCLUSIONS: As technology continues to evolve, robotic-assisted surgery has the potential to become a widely used attractive alternative to standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.     

Renal artery clip dislodgement during hand-assisted laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy

The main reason for conversion in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) is peroperative bleeding. One of the advantages of hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HDLN) is facilitated control in case of bleeding. This report describes two methods to avert conversion in HLDN in the case of abrupt major arterial bleeding. In the first case, during left HLDN the clips placed on the renal artery dislodged, and the surgeon managed to control the bleeding by compressing the focus of the bleeding with his finger. A balloon occlusion catheter was inserted through a groin incision in the aorta and advanced to the origo of the renal artery. Due to control of the hemorrhage, it was possible to close the renal artery stump by laparoscopic suturing, and a conversion was averted. The patient was discharged after 5 days, without signs of damage to the remaining kidney. In the second case, during right HLDN, the clips on the renal artery dislodged during stapling of the renal vein. The bleeding was controlled by finger compression and new clips were placed. The cuff of the artery was long enough to be clipped again. The patient was discharged after 5 days. Graft function was excellent in both cases. Major arterial bleeding can be controlled and managed in hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery. The use of a balloon occlusion catheter is an elegant way to avert conversion.     

Use of heparin and protamine sulfate during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

BACKGROUND: Our aim was to evaluate the necessity of heparin and protamine administration during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. METHODS: Data from 52 consecutive living-related laparoscopic donor nephrectomies performed at University of California Los Angeles between August 1999 and August 2001 were used for this analysis. For the purpose of this analysis, the patients were divided into three cohorts: group A received both heparin and protamine; group B received heparin only; and group C received neither. Intraoperative blood loss, length of admission, recipient creatinine at follow-up, and intraoperative and postoperative complications were compared between the groups. Statistical analysis was performed using a two-tailed test. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the groups with regard to patient age and gender. Intraoperative blood loss did not differ between group B (99+/-73 mL) and group C (82+/-54 mL) ( =0.4). None of the patients required blood transfusion. No graft loss occurred in any group. Length of hospital stay, excluding any preoperative days, was similar (2.8+/-0.7, 2.9+/-1.6, and 2.5+/-0.8 days, for groups A, B, and C, respectively, ( >0.05). No systemic thromboembolic complications were noted in any of the groups. One patient in group B was converted to an open procedure because of a difficult dissection unrelated to heparin administration. The mean recipient creatinine levels at follow-up in the recipients of kidneys from groups A, B, and C were not significantly different (1.1, 1.3, and 1.3; >0.05) through the extended follow-up period of 691, 286, and 97 days, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: According to our experience, there is no apparent benefit in the administration of heparin alone or in the administration of protamine sulfate to reverse heparin anticoagulation during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy if heparin is given. This is not only in terms of bleeding complications but is also true in regard to recipient renal function through the follow-up period. It is important to note that our warm ischemic times were less than 2 minutes, because longer warm ischemic times may make the use of heparin a more important consideration. This is the first time that these questions have been studied in the laparoscopic donor nephrectomy population.