Impact of fellowship training in initiating a laparoscopic donor nephrectomy program

OBJECTIVES: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) is the current standard of care, but remains a challenging procedure. A urologist at our center performed 6 months of standard and hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy (HALN) fellowship (46 cases, 30 as surgeon). He subsequently performed 30 HAL renal surgeries prior to initiating our hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN) program. METHODS: We reviewed the intra- and postoperative outcomes of the first 20 HALDNs performed at our center. We examined demographics, estimated blood loss (EBL), operative time, complications, change in hemoglobin and creatinine, length of hospital stay, warm ischemic time, and recipient outcome. RESULTS: Twenty (20) patients underwent HALDN between November 2003 and December 2005. The mean operative time was 277 minutes. EBL averaged 176 mL. An expected rise in creatinine of 0.1-0.8 mg/dL occurred in all patients. One (1) patient had a splenic abrasion and was transfused intraoperatively. Two (2) patients' courses were complicated by ileus. The remaining patients were discharged on postoperative days 2-6. There were no other complications. Warm ischemia time averaged 3.7 minutes. Two (2) recipients experienced acute or delayed rejection episodes, requiring increased immunosuppression. One (1) recipient had good renal function until he developed sepsis 3 months later and died. All recipients were discharged with functioning grafts, and there have been no ureteral strictures. CONCLUSIONS: Six (6) months of laparoscopic nephrectomy training plus a 30-case HAL/LRN surgical experience sufficiently prepares a surgeon to initiate a HALDN program. Even at a lower volume transplant center, positive operative results and long-term graft outcomes can be achieved.     

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy – safety in a small‐volume transplant center

Riley J, Troxel S, Wakefield M, Ross G, Weinstein S. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy – safety in a small‐volume transplant center.
Clin Transplant 2010: 24: 429–432. © 2009 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Abstract: Introduction: Laparoscopy is a standard surgical option for live donor nephrectomy (LDN) at the majority of transplant centers. Equivalent graft survival with shorter convalescence has been reported by several large volume centers. With the arrival of an experienced laparoscopic surgeon in 2002, we began to offer laparoscopic LDN at our institution. We report our experience as a large volume laparoscopic surgery program but a low volume transplant center. Methods: A retrospective review of the previous 34 LDN (17 open, 17 laparoscopic) performed at the University of Missouri were included. A single laparoscopic surgeon performed all laparoscopic procedures. Hand assisted laparoscopy was performed in 15 and standard laparoscopy with a pfannenstiel incision in two. Open procedures were performed through anterior subcostal or flank incision. A single surgeon performed all open procedures. Results: There was no statistical difference in age, body mass index or American Society of Anesthesiologies Score between the two groups. Mean operative time, estimated blood loss and hospital stay were 229 minutes, 324 cc and 2.2 days respectively in the laparoscopic group compared to 202 minutes, 440 cc and five days for the open group. Average warm ischemia time was 179 seconds. Recipient creatinine for the two groups at one week, one month and one year was not statistically significantly different. Each group had one graft loss due to medication noncompliance. Conclusion: For small transplant centers with an advanced laparoscopic program, laparoscopic LDN is a safe procedure with comparable outcomes to major transplant centers.     

Technique, indications and outcomes of pure laparoscopic right donor nephrectomy

PURPOSE: Laparoscopic nephrectomy for living renal transplantation has emerged as the gold standard. Nevertheless, experience with this technique for procuring right kidneys is limited. We report our single institution results of pure laparoscopic right donor nephrectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy was initiated at the our institution in November 1999. Patient selection was initially limited to the left kidney but right surgery was started 2 years later after 97 operations had been performed. We prospectively acquired data on the donor and recipient, and specifically analyzed outcomes of the right kidneys. RESULTS: In a 40-month period 300 laparoscopic donor operations were performed. Overall 44 procedures (15%) were on the right side with the fraction greater (22%) after removing exclusion of the right kidney from laparoscopic selection criteria. In this cohort mean operative time was 170 minutes, significantly less than the 190 minutes for 50 contemporaneous left kidneys (p = 0.001). No case of right donor nephrectomy required open conversion and vessels were of adequate length. Donor and recipient complications were similar in the 2 groups without technical graft loss in the entire series. CONCLUSIONS: Our method of laparoscopic right donor nephrectomy yields excellent graft quality with adequate vascular length and without the need for elaborate modifications or hand assistance. Moreover, the right operation is technically easier and it achieved comparable donor morbidity and recipient renal function. With sufficient experience the right kidney should be procured laparoscopically when indicated.     

Use of a minimally invasive donor nephrectomy program to select technique for live donor nephrectomy

BACKGROUND: Live donor nephrectomy (LDN) is a major surgical procedure with an accepted low mortality and morbidity. Minimally invasive donor nephrectomy (MIDN) has been shown to decrease the wound morbidity associated with the lumbotomy of the classic open technique. Transplant programs face the challenge of initiating their MIDN programs without jeopardizing the safety of the donor and the graft quality. We present the experience at the University of Calgary after the initiation of a MIDN program, with a preoperative selective approach using the 3 major techniques for LDN. METHODS: From December 2001 to May 2004, 50 consecutive, accepted, live kidney donors were evaluated and chosen to undergo nephrectomy by an open, laparoscopic, or hand-assisted technique. Patients were chosen for a particular technique based on the criteria of vascular anatomy, size of abdominal cavity, previous surgery, and technical implications for the recipient. RESULTS: A total of 15 open, 11 laparoscopic, and 24 hand-assisted nephrectomies were performed. There were no statistically significant differences in sex, age, or body mass index between the groups. There were statistically significant differences in surgical times (P < .001) and in the number of days spent in the hospital (P < .001). All kidneys had primary function. There were 2 conversions in the hand-assisted group and 1 blood transfusion in the open group. Death-censored graft survival was 100% with an observation time of 20 months (SD +/- 9 months; range = 3-32 months). One graft from the hand-assisted group was lost from patient death with functioning graft 8 months after transplant. CONCLUSIONS: The learning curve for MIDN does not necessarily need to impact donor or recipient outcomes. The initiation of an MIDN program can be implemented safely if the cases are selected carefully and the use of the classic open technique is kept as an alternative.     

Urologic complications in renal transplant recipients by donor type

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Reduced donor morbidity has been established after laparoscopic donor nephrectomy compared with open harvest, but differences in recipient outcomes remain less obvious. We compared the urologic complications in patients receiving kidneys procured by cadaveric, open, and laparoscopic harvest. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective study of all the kidney transplantations performed between January 1998 and December 2003 was undertaken to extract 100 consecutive patients in each group. All urologic complications were obtained and grouped by the type of donor procurement. RESULTS: Overall, 48 of the 276 transplant patients (17%) had urologic complications: 14% of the cadaveric-donor recipients, 20% of the open-donor recipients, and 18% of the laparoscopic-donor recipients. There were no ureteral complications in the laparoscopic group. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopically procured donor kidneys were associated with significantly fewer recipient ureteral complications than open cadaver or live-donor procurement.     

Using root cause analysis to improve survival in a liver transplant program

BACKGROUND: With the advent of programs such as the American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, surgical services will be compared with their peers across the United States. At times, many programs will experience lower-than-expected outcomes. During July 1, 1998, to June 30, 2000 our 1-year graft (76.86%, P = 0.23) and patient (80.61%, P = 0.016) survivals after liver transplantation were lower than our expected rates (graft 81.89% and patient 88.3%), according to the U.S. Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR). METHODS: We used aggregate root cause analysis to determine underlying reasons for our patient deaths. Two of our surgeons performed a systematic review of all our center's liver transplant patient deaths from January 1, 1995, to December 31, 2000. Each phase of the transplant process was reviewed. RESULTS: Of 355 patients receiving their first transplant, there were 90 deaths, with 188 root causes identified. The apportionment according to phase of the transplant process was patient selection, 50%; transplant procedure, 17%; donor selection, 15%; post-transplant care, 8%, and psychosocial issues, 10%. Risk reduction action plans were developed, and several important changes made in our care protocol. In April 2004, SRTR data revealed that for patients transplanted between January 1, 2001 and June 30, 2003, our 1-year liver graft survival of 90.73% (P = 0.018) was significantly higher than the national expected rate of 84.48%. Our 1-year patient survival rate of 92.66% (P = 0.285) was higher than the expected rate of 89.29%. CONCLUSIONS: Lower-than-expected outcomes can provide an impetus for improving patient care and raising the quality of a surgical service. Aggregate root cause analysis of adverse events is a valuable method for program improvement.     

Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: trends in donor and recipient morbidity following 381 consecutive cases

OBJECTIVE: To review a single-institution 6-year experience with laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy detailing the technical modifications, clinical results, as well as the trends in donor and recipient morbidity. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Since 1995, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy has had a significant impact on the field of renal transplantation, resulting in decreased donor morbidity, without jeopardizing procurement of a high-quality renal allograft. This technique has become the preferred method of allograft procurement for many transplantation centers worldwide but still remains technically challenging with a steep learning curve. METHODS: Records from 381 consecutive laparoscopic donor nephrectomies were reviewed with evaluation of both donor and recipient outcomes. Trends in donor and recipient complications were assessed over time by comparing the outcomes between four equally divided groups. RESULTS: All 381 kidneys were procured and transplanted successfully with only 8 (2.1%) open conversions. Mean operative time was 252.9 +/- 55.7 minutes, estimated blood loss 344.2 +/- 690.3 mL, warm ischemia time 4.9 +/- 3.4 minutes, and donor length of stay was 3.3 +/- 4.5 days. There was a significant decline in total donor complications, allograft loss, and rate of vascular thrombosis with experience. The rate of ureteral complications declined significantly when comparing our early (Group A) versus later (Groups B-D) experience. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy has remained a safe, less invasive, and effective technique for renal allograft procurement. Over our 6-year experience and with specific refinements in surgical technique, we have observed a decline in both donor and recipient morbidity following laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy.     

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.     

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.     

“First, do no harm”: monitoring outcomes during the transition from open to laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy in a Canadian centre

Objective

During the learning curve for laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (LLDN), donor morbidity and poorer graft function may be increased. To minimize these risks, a dedicated team of laparoscopic, urologic and transplant specialists worked together to introduce the technique. This study was undertaken to validate this approach by comparing donor and recipient outcomes and studying our learning curve during the transition from open (OLDN) to LLDN.

Methods

We compared 59 LLDNs with 34 OLDNs performed for adult recipients. Data were collected prospectively for LLDN and retrospectively for OLDN. We compared donor outcomes and recipient graft function in the 2 groups, and we used the cumulative sum (CUSUM) method to generate learning curves; p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

From the donor standpoint, the complication rate was 10% in the laparoscopic group, compared with 21% in the open group. Length of stay was shorter after LLDN (3 v. 5 d, p < 0.001). Among the recipients, there were no significant differences in the incidences of ureteral complications, delayed graft function (DGF), creatinine levels, acute rejection or patient and graft survival. When we used the incidence of DGF after OLDN as a benchmark, CUSUM analysis revealed a downward inflection point for DGF after 30 cases, consistent with an improvement in performance.

Conclusion

At our institution, a team approach has allowed the safe introduction of LLDN without a significant negative impact on recipient outcomes and with a reduction in donor length of stay. Using DGF as an outcome, we observed improved performance after 30 cases.     

Increased transplantation of kidneys with multiple renal arteries in the laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy era: surgical technique and surgical and nonsurgical donor and recipient outcomes

BACKGROUND: For anatomical and technical reasons, many transplant centers restrict laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (in contrast with open live donor nephrectomy) to left kidneys. HYPOTHESIS: This change in surgical practice increases procurement and transplantation rates of live donor kidneys with multiple renal arteries (RAs), without affecting donor and recipient outcomes. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective review at an academic tertiary care referral center comparing laparoscopically procured single vs multiple-RA kidney grafts (April 1997 to October 2000). PATIENTS: Seventy-nine consecutive left laparoscopic live kidney donors and 78 transplant recipients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Donor and recipient complications and postoperative length of stay; cold and warm ischemia time; operating time; short-term and long-term graft function; and survival. RESULTS: We noted multiple RAs in 21 (27%) of all kidneys. The proportion of donors with 1 or more perioperative complications was 19% in the single-RA group vs 10% in the multiple-RA group (P was not significant). For the recipients, we noted no significant differences between groups with respect to surgical complications, quality of early and late graft function, rejection rates, graft losses (all immunologic), and graft survival. Cold and warm ischemia time and length of stay were similar for donors and recipients in both groups. Median operating times were significantly longer for the multiple-RA vs single-RA group (difference, 41 minutes for donors and 45 minutes for recipients; P<.02). CONCLUSIONS: While the introduction of laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy has significantly increased the number of grafts with multiple RAs (compared with historical open controls), this change in practice is safe for both donors and recipients from a patient outcome-based perspective. However, from an economic perspective, the longer operating time associated with multiple-RA grafts provides strong added rationale for optimization of surgical instruments and techniques to make right-sided laparoscopic nephrectomy a routine intervention.     

Do multiple renal arteries restrict laparoscopic donor nephrectomy?

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is a new technique. For anatomical and technical reasons, many transplant centers restrict laparoscopic donor nephrectomy to kidneys with a single artery. However, we believe that with increased experience, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in cases of multiple renal arteries does not affect donor or recipient outcomes. Among 115 living related renal transplantations performed between January 1996 and December 2002, 31 nephrectomies were performed via laparoscopy including eight with multiple arteries and 84 via an open approach, including nine with multiple arteries. The 17 patients with multiple arteries at the two procedures were compared in terms of donor and recipient outcomes. All the patients received the same immunosuppressive regimen. The demographic data were similar in the two groups. Mean durations of the donor operations (223 vs 247 minutes), side of nephrectomy (left/right, 5/4 vs 7/1), mean warm ischemia times (230 vs 432 seconds), mean serum creatinine levels at the end of 1 year follow-up, were statistically similar for the open versus the laparoscopy groups. Urological (11.1% vs 25%) and vascular complication rates (22.2% vs 25%), acute rejection rates (11.1% vs 12.5%) were also statistically similar for open versus laparoscopy groups, respectively. One-year patient and graft survival rates were 87.5% for both groups. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy was as safe a procedure as open surgery even in the presence of multiple renal arteries in the hands of experienced transplants surgeons.     

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy 1997 to 2003: lessons learned with 500 cases at a single institution

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (LDN) is a less invasive alternative to traditional open nephrectomy that has several potential advantages. However, there have been few large series reports describing the complications of LDN and the details of their management. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of 500 LDNs performed at our center between October 1997 and September 2003. We evaluated preoperative donor characteristics, intraoperative parameters and complications, and postoperative recovery and complications. A modification of the Clavien classification was developed and used to grade the severity of all complications. RESULTS: The overall rate of intraoperative complications was 2.8%. There were 9 open conversions (1.8%), of which 6 were in the first 100 cases. Six of the 9 open conversions were for management of complications; 3 were elective. Seven renovascular incidents (1.4%) all required open conversion except one. The overall rate of postoperative complications was 3.4%. Thirty of 500 patients in our LDN series experienced an intraoperative or procedure-related complication (6.0%). When graded by severity, 18 of 31 (58.1%) of all complications were grade 1, 11 of 31 (35.4%) grade 2, and 2 of 31 (6.5%) grade 3. Only 1 recipient experienced delayed graft function, and only 1 recipient had a urologic complication. CONCLUSIONS: Our series supports the safety and efficacy of LDN with very low intraoperative complication and conversion rates. Most of the intraoperative complications can be managed laparoscopically. Readmissions are extremely rare (1.5%). Aberrant vascular anatomy and obesity are not contraindications to LDN, but they require experience. With careful surgical technique, delayed graft function and urologic complications in recipients can be avoided. A graded classification scheme for reporting complications of donor nephrectomy might be useful for maintaining registry information on donor outcomes and when informing potential donors about the risks and benefits of this procedure.     

Laparoscopic adult donor nephrectomy for pediatric renal transplantation

To evaluate retrospectively our laparoscopic adult donor nephrectomy experience for pediatric transplantation. Since February 1995, 7 adult donors have undergone laparoscopic donor nephrectomy for pediatric renal transplantation (recipients younger than 18 years and weighing less than 30 kg). The outcomes of these donors and pediatric recipients were evaluated. The 7 laparoscopic renal donors had a median operative time of 306 minutes, median allograft warm ischemia time of 275 seconds, median blood loss of 200 mL, median hospital stay of 3 days, and 14.2% overall complication rate. No graft loss or patient mortality occurred. The pediatric recipients of the laparoscopic live-donor allografts had a median creatinine clearance level of 52.1, 52.1, 44, and 41.1 mL/min at 3, 6, 12, and 18 months, respectively. The overall complication rate was 14.2%. The 1 and 2-year graft survival rates were 100%. No mortality occurred in the pediatric recipients. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is well tolerated by the adult donors and appears to provide acceptable recipient and allograft outcomes in the pediatric population.     

Why we consistently use the left donor kidney in living related transplantation: initial experience of right laparoscopic donor nephrectomy and comparison with left nephrectomy

OBJECTIVES: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy has become the method of choice for removal of living donor kidneys. However, the majority of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy cases have been limited to the left side owing to technical difficulties and renal vessel length. This study described the technique and compared donor outcomes and graft function of right and left laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Among 25 patients, 6 consecutive donors underwent right laparoscopic donor nephrectomy from March 2002 to January 2005. They were compared to 19 patients with left laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. We compared operative times, warm ischemia times, serial creatinines, creatinine clearances, complications, and graft function. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in any metric. The operative times (303 min. vs 274 min., P > .05) and warm ischemia times (133 s vs 186 s, P > .05) were similar between right and left laparoscopic donor nephrectomy procedures. In left laparoscopic donor nephrectomy, 3 patients had transient brachial plexus neuropathies. No major complication occurred among patients undergoing right laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. This study demonstrated that both donor and recipient outcomes are similar for right and left laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent use of the left kidney has not affected clinical outcomes. With hand-assisted laparoscopy, the right laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is safe, providing excellent graft function.     

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy at a low volume living donor transplant center: successful outcomes can be expected

PURPOSE: Concern has been raised about possible increased morbidity associated with laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) during the learning curve of the procedure and at centers with a low volume of living donors. We evaluated the safety and success of LDN at a low volume living donor transplant center with a skilled laparoscopic urologist and experienced renal transplant team. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the records of all patients who underwent LDN at our institution. A single surgeon skilled in laparoscopy (JAC) performed all LDNs. Patient demographics, operative reports, complications and recipient outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 17 LDNs were performed between January 2000 and September 2002. There was 1 elective conversion to an open procedure for kidney harvest due to complex hilar anatomy. Only 1 minor complication occurred (wound seroma) and 1 donor had creatinine persistently elevated to 1.9 mg/dl (normal 0.6 to 1.2). Mean operating room time, estimated blood loss and hospital stay were 250 minutes, 188 ml and 2.5 days, respectively. Recipient creatinine had a nadir mean of 1.2 mg/dl and a 90-day postoperative mean of 1.6 mg/dl. One recipient eventually lost the graft due to recurrent disease. CONCLUSIONS: LDN can be performed safely and efficiently at low volume transplant centers with a skilled laparoscopist and experienced renal transplant team. Laparoscopic skills developed during similar procedures, such as laparoscopic radical and partial nephrectomy, minimize the learning curve and morbidity of LDN to produce results consistent with those in the published literature.     

Learning laparoscopic donor nephrectomy safely: a report on 100 cases

HYPOTHESIS: There is concern that learning laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (LLDN) is associated with increased morbidity. We propose that with a team approach LLDN can be learned safely, without increased donor morbidity or graft failure, even during the early portion of a learning curve. DESIGN: Case series with cohort comparison. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: The laparoscopic group consisted of 100 donors and 100 recipients; the open group, 50 donors and 50 recipients. INTERVENTIONS: A team approach that combines laparoscopic and urologic expertise was used to perform 100 cases of LLDN. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Donor morbidity and graft function in the laparoscopic group were compared with those in the open group. RESULTS: Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy was completed in 99 patients. One patient required conversion to open donor nephrectomy because of intraoperative hemorrhage. Minor complications occurred in 6 laparoscopic group donors (6%) and 3 open group donors (6%). Laparoscopic and open group donors were of similar age. Operative times were longer for laparoscopic group donors (231 vs 209 minutes). Mean hospital stay was shorter for laparoscopic group donors (3.3 vs 4.7 days). Graft function was comparable between the laparoscopic and open groups, with equivalent postoperative creatinine levels. Graft survival was comparable. Recipient ureteral complications occurred with less frequency (2% vs 6%) in the laparoscopic group. CONCLUSIONS: By forming an operative team that combines expertise in laparoscopy with expertise in live donor nephrectomy, surgeons can learn LLDN safely. Adoption of the techniques developed by those who pioneered the procedure can further minimize the morbidity associated with a learning curve.     

Open versus laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: a focus on the safety of donors and the need for a donor registry

PURPOSE: A review of the existing literature showed that the subject of live donor nephrectomy is a seat of underreporting and underestimation of complications. We provide a systematic comparison between laparoscopic and open live donor nephrectomy with special emphasis on the safety of donors and grafts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The PubMed literature database was searched from inception to October 2006. A comparison was made between laparoscopic and open live donor nephrectomy regarding donor safety and graft efficacy. RESULTS: The review included 69 studies. There were 7 randomized controlled trials, 5 prospective nonrandomized studies, 22 retrospective controlled studies, 26 large (greater than 100 donors), retrospective, noncontrolled studies, 8 case reports and 1 experimental study. Most investigators concluded that, compared to open live donor nephrectomy, laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy provides equal graft function, an equal rejection rate, equal urological complications, and equal patient and graft survival. Analgesic requirements, pain data, hospital stay and time to return to work are significantly in favor of the laparoscopic procedure. On the other hand, laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy has the disadvantages of increased operative time, increased warm ischemia time and increased major complications requiring reoperation. In terms of donor safety at least 8 perioperative deaths were recorded after laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. These perioperative deaths were not documented in recent review articles. Ten perioperative deaths were reported with open live donor nephrectomy by 1991. No perioperative mortalities have been recorded following open live donor nephrectomy since 1991. Regarding graft safety, at least 15 graft losses directly related to the surgical technique of laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy were found but none was emphasized in recent review articles. The incidence of graft loss due to technical reasons in the early reports of open live donor nephrectomy was not properly documented in the literature. CONCLUSIONS: We are in need of a live organ donor registry to determine the combined experience of complications and long-term outcomes, rather than short-term reports from single institutions. Like all other new techniques, laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy should be developed and improved at a few centers of excellence to avoid the loss of a donor or a graft.     

Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: a comparison with the conventional open approach

PURPOSE: Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy is an emerging technique that has not yet gained widespread acceptance in the transplant community due to perceived technical difficulties. However, the potential advantages of decreasing donor morbidity, decreasing hospital stay and improving convalescence while producing a functional kidney for the recipient may prove to enhance living related renal transplantation. We report our early experience with laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 50 consecutive laparoscopic nephrectomies performed from October 1998 to May 2000 and compared them with 50 consecutive open donor nephrectomies, which served as historical controls. RESULTS: Donor age, donor sex and number of HLA mismatches did not differ statistically in the 2 groups. In the laparoscopic and open nephrectomy groups mean followup was 109 and 331 days (p = 0.0001), mean operative time was 234 and 208 minutes (p = 0.0068), mean estimated blood loss was 114 and 193 ml (p = 0.0001), and mean hospital stay was 3.5 and 4.7 days (p = 0.0001), respectively. Average renal warm ischemia time was 2.8 minutes in the laparoscopic nephrectomy group. Serum creatinine did not differ statistically in the 2 groups preoperatively or postoperatively at days 1 and 5, and 1 month. The rate of recipient ureteral complications in the laparoscopic and open nephrectomy groups was 2% (1 of 50 cases) and 6% (3 of 50), respectively (not significant). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy is an attractive alternative to open donor nephrectomy. Laparoscopic nephrectomy results in less postoperative discomfort, an improved cosmetic result and more rapid recovery for the donor with equivalent functional results and complications.