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.     

Retroperitoneoscopic pre-transplant native kidney nephrectomy

AIMS: Laparoscopic nephrectomy has become a standardized procedure for removal of benign non-functioning kidneys. We present our experience of retroperitoneoscopic pre-transplant native kidneys nephrectomy. METHODS: Comparison of 40 patients who underwent retroperitoneoscopy with 40 open simple pre-transplant nephrectomy patients was done. RESULTS: Forty retroperitoneoscopic nephrectomies were done between June 2003 and April 2005. The mean operative time was similar in the two groups; however, the mean blood loss, postoperative analgesic requirement, complication rate, hospital stay and convalescence period were significantly less in the retroperitoneoscopic group. CONCLUSION: Retroperitoneoscopic nephrectomy should be offered as the primary treatment modality to patients requiring pre-transplant native kidney nephrectomy, except in patients where it is contraindicated.     

Age alone is not a contraindication to kidney donation: Outcomes of donor nephrectomy in the elderly

With increasing organ demand, living kidney donation from older donors (>60‐years‐old) has become more common. Between 1975 and 2014, 3752 donor nephrectomies (DN) were performed at University of Minnesota; 167 (4.5%) were >60‐years‐old Short‐ and long‐term outcomes were compared between contemporaneous >60‐years‐old and <60‐years‐old donors. On univariate analysis, >60‐years‐old were more likely to have had prior abdominal surgery and hypertension; and less likely to smoke. Baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was lower in >60‐years‐old (80 ± 16 vs 101 ± 26 mL/min/1.73 m²; P < .001). Intraoperative and postoperative complications were similar, except a higher prevalence of <30 day ileus (3% vs 7%; P = .021) and longer postoperative length of stay (LOS) (4.2 vs 4.6 days; P = .005). On multivariate analysis, <30 day ileus and LOS continued to be significantly greater for >60‐years‐old After >20 years post‐DN, systolic blood pressure was significantly higher among >60‐years‐old (142 vs 125 mm Hg; P < .001) and HTN was diagnosed earlier (9 vs 14 years). After donation, eGFR was significantly lower for >60‐years‐old but slope of eGFR and rates of end‐stage renal disease (ESRD) were not significantly different >20 years post‐DN. Thus, kidney donation among carefully selected >60‐years‐old poses minimal perioperative risks and no added risk of long‐term ESRD.     

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.     

The optimum approach for pre‐transplant bilateral nephrectomy in small kidneys: dorsal lumbotomy vs laparoscopy

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the outcomes of bilateral pretransplant nephrectomy (BPN) for small kidneys, using a bilateral dorsal lumbotomy (BDL) or transperitoneal laparoscopy (TL) approach.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Fifty‐eight patients with end‐stage renal disease and small kidneys underwent BPN for various indications, most commonly uncontrolled hypertension. There were 38 patients in the BDL group (group 1) and 20 in the TL group (group 2). The variables before and during surgery, and the outcomes afterward, were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients and male/female ratio were comparable in both groups. The mean size of the kidneys removed were 7.4 and 8.2 cm, respectively, in groups 1 and 2. The mean (range) operative duration was longer in group 2, at 210 (160–240) min, than in group 1, at 112 (90–150) min (P < 0.001). The postoperative analgesic requirement for pain, blood transfusion rate, wound and pulmonary complications were similar between the groups. Bowel function recovered earlier in group 1 than group 2 (19 vs 37 h, P < 0.001). The total cost for the nephrectomy in group 2 was 3.5 times that of group 1. The mean interval between nephrectomy and transplantation was similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

BDL appears to be better than TL for BPN in small kidneys because the surgery is quicker, and there is earlier bowel recovery and lower costs.     

后腹腔镜单纯性肾切除术6例报告

目的探讨后腹腔镜单纯性肾切除术的临床价值. 方法采用后腹腔镜行单纯性肾切除术6例,其中输尿管结石致肾积水无功能肾5例,肾结核1例.经后腹腔操作,分离出输尿管显露肾蒂, 肾动脉、肾静脉钛夹夹闭后切断,单纯采用钛夹处理肾蒂切除肾脏. 结果手术均获成功,无手术并发症发生.手术时间130～220 min,平均150 min;术中出血量80～150 ml,平均120 ml;术后住院5～7 d.5例输尿管结石随访3个月,肾功能正常;1例肾输尿管结核抗结核治疗6个月,随访无复发,血肌酐120 μmol/L稍高于正常. 结论腹腔镜单纯性肾切除术创伤小、恢复快,可成为单纯性肾切除的金标准术式.     

Novel technique for hand assisted laparoscopic right donor nephrectomy

PURPOSE: Most surgeons divide the renal vein with a laparoscopic stapler during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. The right renal vein is usually shorter than the left one and using the stapler on the right side can result in a higher incidence of vascular complications for right kidney recipients. We present our experience with a new technique for hand assisted laparoscopic right donor nephrectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We designed a new vascular clamp to be completely inserted into the peritoneal cavity through the hand port incision in hand assisted laparoscopy. The renal vein with a cuff of the inferior vena cava was then excised. The defect in the inferior vena cava was sutured intracorporeally. RESULTS: A total of 80 kidney donors underwent hand assisted laparoscopic right donor nephrectomy using the new technique. Mean +/- SD operative time was 184 +/- 36 minutes. Operative time was decreased in the last 30 patients to 152 +/- 22 minutes. Intracorporeal suture time on the inferior vena cava was 16 +/- 3 minutes. No intraoperative complications were noted and there was no partial or total graft loss. Mean blood loss was 50 +/- 35 cc. Mean warm ischemia time was 4 +/- 2 minutes. Hospital discharge was on postoperative day 1 or 2 in 81% of patients. Graft function was normal in 78 recipients with a day 5 postoperative serum creatinine of 1.6 +/- 0.9 mg/dl. Two recipients showed delayed graft function and were treated medically. CONCLUSIONS: This technique for hand assisted laparoscopic right donor nephrectomy has proved to be safe and reproducible. We recommend practicing laparoscopic inferior vena cava suturing in the animal laboratory before performing it in humans.     

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.     

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.     

The impact of introducing laparoscopic donor nephrectomy to an established renal transplant program

Background Although the advent of hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HLDN) has had a positive impact on the donor pool, there is still some concern about its safety. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of a change in surgical access to live-donor nephrectomy on donor-related complication rates, the renal function of the donor, and the graft function of the recipient.Methods At our hospital, HLDN was introduced in 1998. Thereafter, we compared 49 consecutive donors undergoing open donor nephrectomy (ODN) between 1987 and 2002 with 57 consecutive donors undergoing HLDN between 1998 and 2002. Donor renal and recipient graft functions were assessed by measuring creatinine levels and urine output, with the addition of warm and cold ischemia time and dialysis requirements in the latter group. Data are presented as means (±SD) and analyzed with the Student t-test or Fishers exact test.Results The ODN and HLDN donors were comparable for age, gender, body mass index, renovascular anatomy, and preoperative creatinine. Estimated blood loss (370 ± 280 vs 168 ± 160 ml, p < 0.0001), time to resumption of oral intake (1.7 ± 0.5 vs 1.3 ± 0.7 days, p = 0.01), duration of intravenous narcotic requirements (23 ± 0.7 vs 1.7 ± 1.0 days, p < 0.0001), and hospital stay (4.2 ± 1.4 vs 2.9 ± 1.3 days, p < 0.0001) were significantly decreased after HLDN. There were no significant differences between ODN and HLDN in operating time (204 ± 46 vs 202 ± 49 min), donor-related complication rates (12.2% vs 14%), or donor renal and recipient graft functions.Conclusion The introduction of HLDN to an established renal transplant program led to an improved short-term outcome without any increase in donor-related complication rates or delay in recipient graft function.     

Radiofrequency ablation partial nephrectomy: A new method of nephron-sparing surgery in selected patients

From July 2002 to April 2005, seven radiofrequency ablation partial nephrectomies have been carried out in seven selected patients. A cool-tip Tyco radiofrequency device under intraoperative ultrasound guidance was used. After intervention, tumors were removed and their tissue with their margins were verified histopathologically. Procedure efficacy was assessed by multidetector computed tomography and by ultrasound. Complications included urine leakage in three cases. Histopathologically, in every case renal cell carcinoma was detected. There is no need for dialysis and there has been no tumor recurrence. No bleeding without clamping renal pedicle, easy tumor extraction and, we hope, reduced risk of recurrence are the major advantages of this intervention.     

Partial nephrectomy used to treat renal cell carcinoma arising in a live donor transplant kidney

There are few reported cases of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) arising in kidney allografts. Whether these tumours occur due to post-transplant malignant transformation or are present at the time of transplantation is unclear. The influence of immunosuppression must be considered in their development, progression and treatment. We report a case of a RCC presenting asymptomatically in a functioning live donor renal allograft 173 months after transplantation. In an attempt to avoid return to dialysis treatment, a partial nephrectomy was carried out. To optimise the procedure, and to assure cancer clearance, combined intraoperative ultrasound and frozen section analysis were used. Our patient remains disease free and dialysis independent at 22 months follow up. To our knowledge, this patient represents the only live donor organ transplant tumour reported to be treated using nephron-sparing surgery and remain dialysis independent. Partial nephrectomy should be considered as a treatment option in such cases.     

Improvement on parenchymal suturing technique in laparoscopic partial nephrectomy

Abstract: This report aims to describe a new parenchymal continuous suturing technique for laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. In this new technique, the thread is not tightened or cinched until all stitches are completed. At the final step of the running suture, each thread is tightened and fixed by using Hem‐o‐lok clips. We performed laparoscopic partial nephrectomy with this procedure on eight patients between January and October 2007. The mean ischemic time was 35 min (range: 28–44 min). The mean time of parenchymal suturing was 9.9 min (range: 7–11 min). This procedure allowed us a clear vision during the suturing.     

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy vs. open live donor nephrectomy: a quality of life and functional study

BACKGROUND: Few studies have compared the quality of life (QoL) and functional recuperation of laproscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) vs. open donor nephrectomy (ODN) donors. This study utilized the SF-36 health survey, single-item health-related quality of life (HRQOL) score, and a functional assessment questionnaire ('Donor Survey'). METHODS: Questionnaires were sent to 100 LDN and 50 ODN donors. These donors were patients whose procedures were performed at The University Hospital and The Christ Hospital in Cincinnati, Ohio. RESULTS: A total of 46 (46%) LDN and 21 (42%) ODN donors returned the completed surveys. The demographics of the two groups were similar. LDN patients reported a more rapid return to 100% normal health (69 vs. 116 d; p = 0.24), part-time work (21.9 vs. 23.2 d; p = 0.09), and necessitated fewer physician office visits post-operative (2.8 vs. 4.4; p = 0.01). ODN patients reported shorter duration of oral pain medication use (13.4 vs. 7.2 d; p = 0.02). However, a greater number of ODN patients reported post-surgical chronic pain (3 vs. 6; p < 0.05) and hernia (0 vs. 2; p = 0.19). The overall QoL for both groups was comparable with the general USA population. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study support the decisions of many kidney transplant centers to adopt LDN programs as standard of care.