Optimizing left‐sided live kidney donation: hand‐assisted retroperitoneoscopic as alternative to standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) is less traumatic and painful than the open approach, with shorter convalescence time. Hand‐assisted retroperitoneoscopic (HARP) donor nephrectomy may have benefits, particularly in left‐sided nephrectomy, including shorter operation and warm‐ischemia time (WIT) and improved safety. We evaluated outcomes of HARP alongside LDN. From July 2006 to May 2008, 20 left‐sided HARP procedures and 40 left‐sided LDNs were performed. Intra and postoperative data were prospectively collected and analysis on outcome of both techniques was performed. More female patients underwent HARP compared to LDN (75% vs. 40%, P = 0.017). Other baseline characteristics were not significantly different. Median operation time and WIT were shorter in HARP (180 vs. 225 min, P = 0.002 and 3 vs. 5 min, P = 0.007 respectively). Blood loss did not differ (200 ml vs.150 ml, P = 0.39). Intra and postoperative complication rates for HARP and LDN (respectively 10% vs. 25%, P = 0.17 and 5% vs. 15%, P = 0.25) were not significantly different. During median follow‐up of 18 months estimated glomerular filtration rates in donors and recipients and graft‐ and recipient survival did not differ between groups. Hand‐assisted retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy reduces operation and warm ischemia times, and provides at least equal safety. Hand‐assisted retroperitoneoscopic may be a valuable alternative for left‐sided LDN.     

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.     

Can right‐sided hand‐assisted retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy be advocated above standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a randomized pilot study

Endoscopic techniques have contributed to early recovery and increased quality of life (QOL) of live kidney donors. However, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) may have its limitations, and hand‐assisted retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy (HARP) has been introduced, mainly as a potentially safer alternative. In a randomized fashion, we explored the feasibility and potential benefits of HARP for right‐sided donor nephrectomy in a referral center with longstanding expertise on the standard laparoscopic approach. Forty donors were randomly assigned to either LDN or HARP. Primary outcome was operating time, and secondary outcomes included QOL, complications, pain, morphine requirement, blood loss, warm ischemia time, and hospital stay. Follow‐up time was 1 year. Skin‐to‐skin time did not significantly differ between both groups (162 vs. 158 min, P = 0.98). As compared to LDN, HARP resulted in a shorter warm ischemia time (2.8 vs. 3.9 min, P < 0.001) and increased blood loss (187 vs. 50 ml, P < 0.001). QOL, complication rate, pain, or hospital stay was not significantly different between the groups. Right‐sided HARP is feasible but does not confer clear benefits over standard right‐sided LDN yet. Further studies should explore the value of HARP in difficult cases such as the obese donor and the value of HARP for transplantation centers starting a live kidney donation program (Dutch Trial Register number: NTR3096). Nevertheless, HARP is a valuable addition to the surgical armamentarium in live donor surgery.     

Hand‐assisted laparoscopic versus total laparoscopic right colectomy: a randomized controlled trial

Aim Laparoscopic colectomy for colorectal cancer is associated with definite short‐term benefits, and is increasingly practised worldwide. The limitations of a pure laparoscopic approach include a relative lack of tactile feedback and long procedural time. Hand‐assisted laparoscopic surgery was introduced in an attempt to facilitate operation by improving the tactile sensation. To date, there is no consensus as to which approach is better. Herein we conducted a randomized controlled trial comparing hand‐assisted laparoscopic colectomy (HALC) with total laparoscopic colectomy (TLC) in the management of right‐sided colonic cancer. Methods Adult patients with carcinoma of the caecum and ascending colon were recruited and randomized to undergo either HALC or TLC. Measured outcomes included operative time, blood loss, conversion rate, postoperative morbidities, postoperative pain, length of hospital stay, disease recurrence and patient survival. Results Sixty patients (HALC = 30, TLC = 30) were recruited. The two groups were comparable with regard to age, gender distribution, body mass index and final histopathological staging. No difference was observed between the groups in terms of operating time, conversion rate, operative blood loss, pain score and length of hospital stay. With a median follow‐up of 27 to 33 months, no difference was observed in terms of disease recurrence, and the 5‐year survival rates remained similar (83%vs 80%, P = 0.923). Conclusion HALC is safe and feasible, but it does not show any significant benefits over TLC in terms of operating time and conversion rate. Routine use of the hand‐assisted laparoscopic technique in right hemicolectomy is therefore not recommended.     

Laparoscopy for living donor left nephrectomy: Comparison of three‐dimensional and two‐dimensional vision

The main objective of this preliminary study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of 3‐D laparoscopic living donor left nephrectomy (LDLN). The secondary objective was to compare intraoperative and postoperative outcomes between 3‐D and 2‐D laparoscopic LDLN. All patients who underwent a laparoscopic LDLN from January 2015 to April 2018 in a university center were included. All surgeries were performed by three experienced surgeons. Seventy three patients were included the following: 16 underwent a 3‐D laparoscopic LDLN (3‐D group), and 57 underwent a 2‐D laparoscopic LDLN (2‐D group). Operative time and warm ischemia time (WIT) were significantly lower in the 3‐D group (operative time: 80.9 ± 10.2 vs 114.1 ± 32.3 minutes in the 3‐D and 2‐D groups, P = .0002) (WIT: 1.7 ± 0.6 vs 2.3 ± 0.9 minutes in the 3‐D and 2‐D groups, P = .02). No conversion to open surgery occurred in both groups. Length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the 3‐D group. No major postoperative complications (Clavien ≥ III) occurred. One‐year postoperative GFR was similar to 3‐D and 2‐D groups. Our preliminary study demonstrates that 3‐D laparoscopic LDLN is a feasible and safe surgical procedure. Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes were similar in both 2‐D and 3‐D vision systems, but 3‐D vision systems allow reduction in WIT and operative time.     

Robot‐assisted partial nephrectomy: Superiority over laparoscopic partial nephrectomy

Nephron‐sparing surgery has been proven to positively impact the postoperative quality of life for the treatment of small renal tumors, possibly leading to functional improvements. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy is still one of the most demanding procedures in urological surgery. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy sometimes results in extended warm ischemic time and severe complications, such as open conversion, postoperative hemorrhage and urine leakage. Robot‐assisted partial nephrectomy exploits the advantages offered by the da Vinci Surgical System to laparoscopic partial nephrectomy, equipped with 3‐D vision and a better degree in the freedom of surgical instruments. The introduction of the da Vinci Surgical System made nephron‐sparing surgery, specifically robot‐assisted partial nephrectomy, safe with promising results, leading to the shortening of warm ischemic time and a reduction in perioperative complications. Even for complex and challenging tumors, robotic assistance is expected to provide the benefit of minimally‐invasive surgery with safe and satisfactory renal function. Warm ischemic time is the modifiable factor during robot‐assisted partial nephrectomy to affect postoperative kidney function. We analyzed the predictive factors for extended warm ischemic time from our robot‐assisted partial nephrectomy series. The surface area of the tumor attached to the kidney parenchyma was shown to significantly affect the extended warm ischemic time during robot‐assisted partial nephrectomy. In cases with tumor‐attached surface area more than 15 cm², we should consider switching robot‐assisted partial nephrectomy to open partial nephrectomy under cold ischemia if it is imperative. In Japan, a nationwide prospective study has been carried out to show the superiority of robot‐assisted partial nephrectomy to laparoscopic partial nephrectomy in improving warm ischemic time and complications. By facilitating robotic technology, robot‐assisted partial nephrectomy will be more frequently carried out as a safe, effective and minimally‐invasive nephron‐sparing surgery procedure.     

Hand‐assisted laparoscopic versus open approach in colorectal surgery: a systematic review

Aim This systematic review was performed to answer the question whether hand‐assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) can preserve the advantages of laparoscopic compared with open surgery in colorectal disease. Method Eligible studies were identified from electronic databases (Medline, Embase Cochrane) and cross‐reference search. The database search, quality assessment and data extraction were independently performed by two reviewers. Outcome criteria were operative time, number of trocars used, conversion rate, incision length, blood loss, time to passage of flatus, use of analgesia, postoperative morbidity, in‐hospital mortality, length of hospital stay, number of lymph nodes and costs. Results Out of 162 publications seven publications were selected for comprehensive review. Three randomized controlled trials (RCT) and four non‐RCTs, comprising 571 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Because of heterogeneity, the data could not be pooled. The operative time was significantly longer in HALS in four of the seven studies (addition in median operative time of 13–81 min). The conversion rate varied from 0 to 10%. Two of the four reporting studies demonstrated a significantly shorter time to passage of flatus in HALS (averagely one day in advance). Length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in HALS in four of the seven studies (average gain between 2 and 4 days). Conclusions Hand‐assisted laparoscopic surgery has the advantages of laparoscopic surgery over open surgery while reducing some of the disadvantages of laparoscopic surgery (shorter operative time, lower conversion rates). Especially for indications in which an incision to extract the resection specimen is required, HALS provides an excellent treatment option.     

Open donor, laparoscopic donor and hand assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a comparison of outcomes

PURPOSE: In experienced hands laparoscopic surgery has been shown to be safe for procuring kidneys for transplantation that function identically to open nephrectomy controls. While searching for a safer and easier approach to laparoscopic donor nephrectomy, hand assisted laparoscopic techniques have been added to the surgical armamentarium. We compare allograft function in patients with greater than 1-year followup who underwent open donor (historic series), classic laparoscopic and hand assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The charts of 48 patients who underwent open donor, laparoscopic donor or hand assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy were reviewed. Only patients with greater than 1-year followup and complete charts were included in our study. Of these patients 34 underwent consecutive laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy and 14 underwent open donor nephrectomy. Mean patient age plus or minus standard deviation (SD) was 36.5 +/- 8.4 years for donors and 29 +/- 17 for recipients at transplantation (range 13 months to 69 years). In the laparoscopic group 11 patients underwent the transperitoneal technique, and 23 underwent hand assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy. RESULTS: Total operating time was significantly reduced with the hand assisted laparoscopic technique compared with classic laparoscopy, as was the time from skin incision to kidney removal and warm ischemic time. Average warm ischemic time plus or minus SD was 3.9 +/- 0.3 minutes for laparoscopic nephrectomy and 1.6 +/- 0.2 for hand assisted laparoscopy (p <0.05). Long-term followup of serum creatinine levels revealed no significant differences among the 3 groups. Comparison of those levels for recipients of open nephrectomy versus laparoscopic and hand assisted laparoscopic techniques revealed p values greater than 0.5. No blood transfusions were necessary. Complications included adrenal vein injury in 1 patient, small bowel obstruction in 2, abdominal hernia at the trocar site in 1 and deep venous thrombosis in 1. CONCLUSIONS: Classic laparoscopic donor and hand assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomies appear to be safe procedures for harvesting kidneys. The recipient graft function is similar in the laparoscopic and open surgery groups.     

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.     

Total laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: a 6-year experience

BACKGROUND: Since the introduction of the laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy in 1995, attempts have been made to depart from the total laparoscopic approach to the hand-assisted approach to decrease surgical time and complications. We present our 6-year experience with the total laparoscopic approach. METHODS: Between December 1998 and November 2004 there were 168 total laparoscopic live donor nephrectomies performed at our institution. There were 163 left nephrectomies and 5 right nephrectomies. RESULTS: The procedure was performed in a systematic approach. The surgical time deceased from an average of 2:27 hours in the first year to 1:34 hours in the last year of the study. The overall average warm ischemia time was 3.5 minutes. Major bleeding requiring conversion to an open procedure occurred in 2 (1.2%) donors. Minor bleeding that was controlled laparoscopically occurred in 9 (5.4%) donors. Degloving of the renal capsule occurred in 2 (1.2%) donors with no consequences. Minor mesenteric rent occurred in 7 (4.2%) donors. All mesenteric complications were recognized and repaired laparoscopically. No ureteral or bowel injuries occurred. There were no mortalities. Eighty-three percent of donors were discharged the next day. CONCLUSIONS: Total laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy is safe. It was performed successfully in 98.8% of donors with a short surgical time, low morbidity, and 0% mortality.     

Live donor nephrectomy: a review of evidence for surgical techniques

Live kidney donation is an important alternative for patients with end‐stage renal disease. To date, the health of live kidney donors at long‐term follow‐up is good, and the procedure is considered to be safe. Surgical practice has evolved from the open lumbotomy, through mini‐incision muscle‐splitting open donor nephrectomy, to minimally invasive laparoscopic techniques. There are different minimally invasive techniques, including standard laparoscopic, hand‐assisted laparoscopic, hand‐assisted retroperitoneoscopic, pure retroperitoneoscopic, and robotic‐assisted live donor nephrectomy. At present, these minimally invasive techniques are subjected to clinical trials focusing on surgical outcome, quality of life, costs, long‐term follow‐up, and also morbidity of donor, recipient, and graft. In practice, many centers only perform donor nephrectomy on young healthy donors with normal weight. There is increasing evidence that donor nephrectomy with multiple arteries, right kidney and obese patients can be done with precaution. In this review, we address the surgical part of live kidney donation and the best level of evidence for all surgical techniques and issues surrounding the technique.     

The safety of hand‐assisted laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy: The Ohio State University experience with 1500 cases

Hand‐assisted laparoscopic donor (HALD) nephrectomy has been performed at our institution since December 1999. Through May 2014, a total of 1500 HALD procedures have been performed. We have evaluated the outcomes of HALD. The HALD procedure consists of a hand‐port incision as well as two 12‐mm ports. Mean donor age was 40.8 ± 10.8 yr, BMI was 27.9 ± 5.0, there were 541 males, 1271 Caucasians, and the left kidney was removed in 1236 patients. All procedures were successfully completed. Four donors (0.27%) were converted to an open technique due to bleeding. Four donors required blood transfusions. 53 donors (3.5%) were readmitted in the first month post‐donation; almost half were due to gastrointestinal complaints. Six donors required reoperation; three for SBO and three for wound dehiscence. 27 patients (1.8%) developed incisional hernias. Seven donors (0.47%) developed bowel obstruction. All donors recovered well with a mean hospital stay after donation of 2.1 ± 0.3 d. All except one kidney were successfully implanted. Twenty‐one recipients (1.4%) experienced DGF. Ureter complications occurred in 17 (1.1%) recipients. Early graft loss occurred in 13 patients (0.9%). In conclusion, HALD is a safe procedure for the donor with good recipient outcomes.