Early graft function in kidney transplantation: comparison between laparoscopic donor nephrectomy and open donor nephrectomy

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LN) offers less postoperative pain and early recovery in living kidney donors, but graft kidney function in the recipients can be delayed due to prolonged warm ischemic time (WIT) and adverse effects of pneumoperitoneum. We compared the early function of the grafted kidney and the complications in kidney recipients after LN versus open nephrectomy (ON). We analyzed 109 kidney recipients from living donors, including 60 LN and 49 ON, comparing immediate diuresis after surgery, glomerular filtration rate (GFR) by MDRD formula (modification of diet in renal disease) at day 5, and complications. The recipient age among the LN group was 20 to 73 years with 51% men among whom 95% of patients had immediate diuresis with GFR at day 5 varying from 4.85 to 99.45 mL/min/1.73 m(2) by MDRD Surgical complications were renal artery stenosis (5%) and urinary leakage (5%). The recipient among age ON cases varied from 18 to 63 years with 63% men and immediate diuresis observed in 87% and GFR at day 5 varied from 4.75 to 101.1 mL/min/1.73 m(2) by MDRD. Renal artery stenosis was observed in 8.16%. The WIT was longer (P < .05) among the LN (1.4 to 11 minutes) compared with the ON group (1 to 4 minutes). GFR at day 5 showed no difference between the two groups. In conclusion, WIT was higher among LN compared with ON but did not seem to influence early function of the grafted kidney.     

A comparison of recipient renal outcomes with laparoscopic versus open live donor nephrectomy

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (laparoNx) has the potential to increase living kidney donation rates by reducing the pain and suffering of the donor. However, renal function outcomes of a large series of recipients of laparoNx have not been studied. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of 132 recipients of laparoNx done at our center between 3/96 and 11/97 and compared them to 99 recipients of kidneys procured by the open technique (openNx) done between 10/93 and 3/96. RESULTS: Significantly more patients in the laparoNx group (25.2%) were taking tacrolimus within the first month than those in the openNx group (2.1%). Mean serum creatinine was higher in laparoNx compared with openNx at 1 week (2.8+/-0.3 and 1.8+/-0.2 mg/dl, respectively; P=0.005) and at 1 month (2.0+/-0.1 and 1.6+/-0.1 mg/dl, P=0.05) after transplant. However, by 3 and 6 months, the mean serum creatinine was similar in the two groups (1.7+/-0.1 versus 1.5+/-0.05 mg/dl, and 1.7+/-0.1 versus 1.7+/-0.1, respectively). By 1 year posttransplant, the mean serum creatinine for laparoNx was actually less than that for openNx (1.4+/-0.1 and 1.7+/-0.1 mg/dl, P=0.03). Although patients in the laparoNx compared to the openNx group were more likely to have delayed graft function (7.6 versus 2.0%) and ureteral complications (4.5 versus 1.0%), the rate of other complications, as well as hospital length of stay, patient and graft survival rates were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSION: Although laparoNx allografts have slower initial function compared with openNx, there was no significant difference in longer term renal function.     

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.     

Patient-reported outcomes for open versus laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy

BACKGROUND: Rates of living kidney donation have increased dramatically in recent years, in large part because of improved surgical techniques such as laparoscopic nephrectomy. OBJECTIVE: To compare patient-reported outcomes of laparoscopic nephrectomy versus open donor nephrectomy in 84 adult live kidney donors. OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes included perceptions of pain and surgical scarring, number of surgical/medical complications, hospital length of stay, physical health problems related to donation, return to work, financial impact, health-related quality of life, and satisfaction with the donation experience. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: The 2 groups did not differ significantly in pain perceptions, number of surgical/medical complications, physical health problems, financial impact, health-related quality of life, or overall satisfaction. However, laparoscopic nephrectomy donors had significantly fewer hospital days and faster return to work time than open donor nephrectomy donors. The majority of donors report excellent health-related quality of life and no complications in the months following surgery. In addition, it appears that laparoscopic nephrectomy, in comparison to open donor nephrectomy, may reduce barriers to living kidney donation by reducing hospital length of stay and time away from work. Being able to return to work much sooner after surgery may significantly reduce the indirect costs (ie, lost wages) associated with living donation.     

手助腹腔镜与开放手术活体供肾切取术的临床研究

目的比较手助腹腔镜活体供肾切取术（HLDN）和开放手术活体供肾切取术（ODN）的临床疗效,观察术后受者移植肾近期存活情况。方法回顾性分析中南大学湘雅三医院移植中心2004年1月至2013年11月完成的341例亲属活体肾移植供、受者资料。根据供者手术方式的不同,将其分为HLDN组（103例）和ODN组（238例）。比较两组受者手术时长、切口长度、供肾热缺血时间、肾动脉长度、肾静脉长度、术中失血量、围手术期芬太尼用量、术后非甾体抗炎药（NSAIDs）用量和术后恢复劳动天数。术后48h使用视觉模拟评分（VAS）法评估两组供者疼痛程度。术后随访供、受者恢复情况,并于术后7d、1个月复查受者肾功能。连续变量采用t检验进行比较,分类变量采用Fisher确切概率法进行比较。结果HLDN组和ODN组供者切口长度分别为（6．0±0．4）cm和（13．5±1．0）cm,术中失血量分别为（45±12）mL和（151±24）mL,差异均有统计学意义（t=73．56和42．56,P均〈0．05）。两组手术时长、供肾热缺血时间、肾动脉长度、肾静脉长度相比,差异均无统计学意义（t=1．39,1．70,0．00和1．85,P均〉0．05）。103例HLDN组供者中有102例顺利完成手术,1例主动中转开放,术后发生肺部感染1例,无术后切口感染及其他严重并发症。238例ODN组供者均成功完成手术,术后切口感染1例、脂肪液化2例,术后出血通过外科止血2例,无其他手术相关并发症。HLDN组和ODN组供者术后48hVAS分别为（2．3±0．6）分和（3．9±0．9）分,围手术期芬太尼用量分别为（1．7±0．2）mg和（1．9±0．2）mg,术后NSAIDs用量分别为（22±33）mg和（47±42）mg,术后恢复劳动天数分别为（23±10）d和（44±15）d,差异均有统计学意义（t=16．52,8．48,5．37和13．00,P均〈0．05）。两组供者术后7d、1个月血清肌酐水平相比,?     

Lung function after open versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Postoperative lung function and gas exchange were studied in 36 patients after cholecystectomy. Twenty-four of the patients underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy while the remaining twelve were operated with open technique. Before surgery all patients had normal ventilatory volumes (forced vital capacity, FVC and forced expired volume in 1 s, FEV₁) and normal gas exchange. Two hours postoperativley FVC was reduced to 64±16% (P<0.05) of the preoperative level in the laparoscopic group and to 45±23% (P<0.05) after open cholecystecomy. On the first postoperative day FVC was virtually normal in the laparoscopic patients (77±17% of preoperative level, NS), whereas the open surgery patients still had a decreased FVC (56±13% of preoperative, P<0.05). FEV₁ in the postoperative period followed the same course as FVC. Gas exchange was significantly impaired in the early postoperative period in all patients but no difference between the two groups was found. Two hours postoperatively Pao₂ was reduced to 85% (P<0.05) of preoperative value and Paco₂ had increased by 0.5 kPa (p<0.05). The alveolo-arterial oxygen tension difference (PA-ao₂) had increased by approximately 45% to a mean of 3.7 kPa (P<0.05). On the first postoperative day gas exchange was still significantly impaired in the open surgery patients. Atelectasis detected by computed X-ray tomography of the lungs were found in both groups. However, the amount of atelectasis tended to be smaller in the laparoscopic group than in the open surgery patients. In summary, cholecystectomy irrespective of whether it was performed by open or laparoscopic technique was followed by deterioration in ventilatory function and gas exchange. However, the magnitude of this impairment was less pronounced in laparoscopic cholecystectomy patients than in the open surgery patients which may suggest that this minimal invasive procedure is favourable with respect to postoperative lung function.     

A controlled sequential evaluation of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy versus open donor nephrectomy: an update

INTRODUCTION: In this study, we compared laparoscopic (lap Nx) to open donor nephrectomy (open Nx) with specific emphasis on outcomes in the donor and recipient. METHODS: This single-center sequential analysis recruited 100 consecutive donor-recipient pairs operated on from 1997 until 2003. The open Nx (n = 30), were performed between 1997 and 2000; the lap Nx (n = 70) were performed between 2000 and 2003. Prospective records included operative data, anatomic details of the graft, hospital stay, and donor recovery. RESULTS: Donor characteristics and renal function were similar for open Nx and lap Nx. Operative parameters were similar except for the longer warm ischemia time in lap Nx versus open Nx (3.14 +/- 2.10 vs 1.5 +/- 0.5 minute, P < .001). Donor complications were equivalent in number, but differed in spectrum with a trend toward more intraoperative complications with lap Nx versus more postoperative complications for open Nx. Donor recovery, hospital stay, and return to work were improved in lap Nx versus open Nx (P < .001). Renal function of grafts after lap Nx were similar to open Nx: 2-year serum creatinine values of 1.26 +/- 0.21 versus 1.31 +/- 0.40, respectively. Graft survivals were similar. CONCLUSION: Compared to open Nx lap Nx offers major advantages to the donor, and yields similarly favorable results in graft outcomes. However, it is more surgically demanding. Consequently, lap Nx should be adopted as the procedure of choice for living kidney retrieval.     

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.     

Management of lymphoceles after renal transplantation: laparoscopic versus open drainage

PURPOSE: Laparoscopic surgery has become widely accepted for the treatment of lymphoceles following kidney transplantation. In this single center study we retrospectively reviewed our results of the surgical management of post-transplant lymphoceles, assessing indication and outcome of laparoscopic versus open drainage. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The records of 60 patients who underwent surgical treatment for a symptomatic lymphocele following kidney transplantation or combined kidney/pancreas transplantation were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: Between 1995 and 2002, 1,836 patients received a kidney transplant at the University of California San Francisco. In 60 patients (3.3%) a symptomatic lymphocele developed and either laparoscopic (20) or open drainage (40) was completed. The conversion rate from laparoscopic to open drainage was 16.5%. The most common indications for open lymphocele drainage were noninfectious wound complications (13 patients) and a high risk of vessel or ureter injury (8) due to proximity of the lymphocele to hilar structures. Additional surgery on the graft was required in 5 patients. Intraoperative blood loss was significantly lower in the laparoscopy group. Median hospital stay was 1 day in the laparoscopy group versus 4 days in the open drainage group. No perioperative complications were observed in either group. After a median followup of 38 months, 2 patients in each treatment group had a symptomatic recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Although both surgical approaches are safe and effective, laparoscopic drainage should remain the method of choice for the treatment of post-transplant lymphocele. However, open drainage should be performed in patients with wound complications and in those with a small lymphocele adjacent to vital renal structures.     

Cost effectiveness of laparoscopic versus mini-incision open donor nephrectomy: a randomized study

BACKGROUND: Cost-effectiveness remains an issue surrounding the introduction of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN). METHODS: In a randomized controlled trial the cost-effectiveness of LDN versus mini-incision open donor nephrectomy (ODN) was determined. Fifty donors were included in each group. All in-hospital costs were documented. Postoperatively, case record forms were sent to the donors during 1-year follow-up to record return-to-work and societal costs. To offset costs against quality of life, the Euroqol-5D questionnaire was administered preoperatively and 3, 7, 14, 28, 90, 180, and 365 days postoperatively. RESULTS: Mean total costs were euro6,090 (US$7,308) after LDN and euro4,818 ($5,782) after ODN (P<0.001). Disposables influenced the cost difference most. Mean productivity loss was 68 and 75 days after LDN and ODN respectively, corresponding to euro783 ($940) gained per donor after LDN. The main gain in quality of life in the LDN group was realized within 4 weeks postoperatively. LDN resulted in a mean gain of 0.03 quality-adjusted life years at mean costs of euro1,271 ($1,525) and euro488 ($586) from a healthcare perspective and a societal perspective, respectively. This implies that one additional Quality-Adjusted Life Year after LDN costs about euro16,000 ($19,200) from a societal point of view and about euro41,000 ($49,200) from a health-care perspective. Activities other than work were resumed significantly earlier after LDN (66 vs. 91 days, P=0.01). CONCLUSION: In addition to a clinically relevant donor-experienced benefit from LDN, this technique appeared, given a societal perspective, a cost-efficient procedure mainly due to less productivity losses.     

Recovery of renal function after complete renal hilar versus artery alone clamping during open and laparoscopic surgery

PURPOSE: It is generally accepted that simultaneous occlusion of the renal artery and vein during warm ischemia is more damaging than occlusion of the artery alone. Pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopy may impair venous backflow, negating the benefits of clamping the artery alone. We evaluated the effect of laparoscopic vs open surgery on the recovery of renal function after clamping of the renal artery and vein, and the artery alone in a solitary kidney porcine model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Right laparoscopic nephrectomy was performed in 36 pigs. After a 12-day recovery period the animals were randomized into 3 groups, including 1) 120-minute warm ischemia with renal artery and vein occlusion, 2) 120-minute warm ischemia with artery alone occlusion and 3) control sham surgery. The groups were further subdivided into an open and a laparoscopic arm. Serum creatinine was assessed preoperatively, and on postoperative days 1, 3, 8 and 15. RESULTS: Artery alone clamping resulted in a significantly lower serum creatinine increase on postoperative days 1 and 3 in the open arm compared to the laparoscopic arm. Compared to open renal artery and vein clamping the increase in serum creatinine for open artery alone clamping was also significantly lower on postoperative days 1 and 3. No significant difference in postoperative serum creatinine was found between the laparoscopic artery alone, and the renal artery and vein arms at any time point. No significant serum creatinine changes were observed in the control sham surgery group compared to preoperative values at all followup time points. CONCLUSIONS: In this porcine model clamping of the artery alone during open surgery better protected the kidney from warm ischemia compared to renal artery and vein occlusion. This benefit was not observed during laparoscopic surgery. We speculated that the presence of pneumoperitoneum causes at least partial occlusion of the renal vein, thus, negating the benefit of renal artery clamping only.     

Laparoscopic versus open live donor nephrectomy in renal transplantation: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare laparoscopic versus open live donor nephrectomy using meta-analytical techniques. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy has gained widespread acceptance and is increasingly performed. The body of evidence assessing the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic compared with established open techniques is growing; however, very few randomized control trials exist and individual studies often have small patient numbers with varying results. We combined the available raw data to strengthen the current literature in comparing these techniques. METHODS: A literature search was performed and comparative studies published between 1997 and 2006 of open versus laparoscopic donor nephrectomy were included. Outcomes evaluated were operative and warm ischemia times, blood loss, donor complications, length of hospital stay, time to return to work, and delayed graft function. RESULTS: Seventy-three studies matched the selection criteria and included 6594 patients, 3751 (57%) had undergone laparoscopic surgery and 2843 (43%) open nephrectomy. The open nephrectomy group had shorter operative and warm ischemia times by 52 minutes (P < 0.001) and 102 seconds (P < 0.001), respectively. This did not translate into higher delayed graft function or graft loss rates between the 2 groups. Patients in the laparoscopic group had a shorter hospital stay and a faster return to work by 1.58 days (P < 0.001) and 2.38 weeks (P < 0.001), respectively. There was a significantly higher rate of overall donor complications in the open group (P = 0.007), a finding not reproduced in any subsequent sensitivity analyses. When only randomized control trials were considered, there were shorter operative times (P = 0.002) for the open group but nonsignificantly different warm ischemia times. In contrast to the main analysis there were no differences in the overall complication rate, postoperative analgesia, hospital stay, or time taken to return to work. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic nephrectomy in live donor transplantation is a safe alternative to the open technique. Although open nephrectomy may be associated with shorter operative and warm ischemia times, patients undergoing laparoscopic nephrectomy may benefit from a shorter hospital stay and faster return to work without compromising graft function.     

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.     

Early outcomes of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy with multiple renal arteries

Purpose: We evaluated our experience with laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in patients with multiple renal arteries, comparing operative outcomes and early graft function with patients with a single renal artery. Materials and Methods: From January 2003 to February 2009, 130 patients underwent laparoscopic donor nephrectomy at our institution, 108 (83 %) with a single renal artery and 22 (17 %) with multiple arteries. Donor and recipient outcomes for single artery and multiple arteries allografts were compared. Results: The LDN operative time was similar between the single artery and multiple arteries groups (162 vs 163 min, respectively, p = 0.87). Allografts with multiple arteries had significantly longer warm ischemia time (3.9 vs 4.9 min, p = 0.05) and cold ischemia time (72 vs 94 min, p < 0.001) than those with single artery. The conversion rate was similar between single and multiple arteries groups (6 % vs 4.5 %, respectively, p = 0.7). Multiple arteries grafts had a non statistically significant higher rate of poor graft function when compared to single artery grafts (23 % vs 12 %, respectively, p = 0.18). Five patients in the single artery group (4.6 %) and one patient in the multiple arteries group (4.5 %) needed dialysis during the first postoperative week. Overall, recipient complication rates were similar between single and multiple arteries groups (12.9 % vs 18.1 %, respectively, p = 0.51). Conclusion: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy with multiple arteries was associated with a non statistically significant higher rate of poor early graft function. The procedure appears to be safe in patients with multiple arteries, with similar complications rates. Multiple arteries should not be a contraindication for laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.