Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: an increasingly common cause for testicular pain and swelling

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) is now a well established method for kidney procurement from living donors. In our centre, LDN is currently offered only to donors suitable for a left nephrectomy. The aim of this study was to investigate the incidence of testicular pain and swelling following LDN.

METHODS

A total of 25 left-sided LDN male patients were assessed in a prospective structured interview together with a control cohort of 25 male patients who had undergone left-sided open donor nephrectomy (ODN).

RESULTS

Data were collected on testicular pain, swelling, numbness, urinary symptoms and sexual dysfunction from all 50 patients (100% response rate). Of the 25 LDN patients, 11 (44%) experienced ipsilateral testicular pain and/or swelling. In most instances, pain was of immediate onset, mild to moderate in severity, lasted for a few days to several weeks and was associated with testicular swelling (10 of 11 cases). However, testicular pain and/or swelling were not apparent in ODN patients, with only 2 of 25 (8%) experiencing mild testicular pain, 1 of whom also had swelling.

CONCLUSIONS

Testicular pain and swelling following LDN is a common problem. It is underreported in the literature and should be included in the differential diagnoses of testicular pain and swelling. Further investigation is required to confirm our findings.     

Comparison of laparoscopic and open donor nephrectomy: a randomized controlled trial

Authors from Iran compare various outcomes between laparoscopic and open donor nephrectomy in kidney transplantation; they carried out a large comparative trial, and found that laparoscopic donor nephrectomy gave better donor satisfaction and morbidity, with equivalent graft outcome. OBJECTIVE: To compare the graft survival, donor and recipient outcome, donor satisfaction, and complications of laparoscopic (LDN) and open donor nephrectomy (ODN) in kidney transplantation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a randomized controlled trial, 100 cases each of LDN and ODN were compared. We modified the standard LDN procedure to make it less expensive. RESULTS: The mean (sd) operative duration was 152.2 (33.9) min for ODN and 270.8 (58.5) min for LDN, and the mean duration of kidney warm ischaemia was 1.87 min for ODN and 8.7 min for LDN. Only one LDN required conversion to ODN because of bleeding. The mean follow-up in the LDN and ODN groups was not significantly different (406.1 vs 403.8 days). The mean (sd) score for donor satisfaction was 17.3 (3.5) for ODN and 19.6 (1.0) for LDN. The rate of ureteric complications was 2% for ODN and none for LDN. As determined by serum creatinine levels at 3, 21-30, 90, 180 and 365 days after surgery, graft function was not significantly different between ODN and LDN. Long-term graft survival was 93.8% for LDN and 92.7% for ODN. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to ODN, LDN was associated with greater donor satisfaction, less morbidity and equivalent graft outcome.     

Increased rates of donation with laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of laparoscopic nephrectomy and recipient education on the proportion of kidney recipients who could identify a potential live donor, and on the live donor (LD) transplantation rate. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) results in less postoperative surgical pain, a shorter hospital stay, and quicker recovery than the standard open donor nephrectomy (ODN). The authors hypothesized that the availability of this less invasive surgical technique would enhance the willingness of family and friends to donate. METHODS: The study population consisted of 3,298 end-stage renal disease patients referred for kidney transplant evaluation between November 1991 and February 2000, divided into three groups. The first group received no formal LD education and had only ODN available. The second group received formal education about the LD process and had only ODN available. The third group had both formal LD education and LDN available. Records were examined to determine what proportion of each group had any potential donors tissue-typed, and the rate at which they received an LD transplant. RESULTS: Before LDN availability and formal LD education, only 35.1% of referrals found a potential donor, and only 12.2% received an LD transplant within 3 years. Institution of a formal education program increased the volunteer rate to 39.0%, and 16.5% received an LD transplant. When LDN became available, 50% of patients were able to find at least one potential donor, and within 3 years 24.7% received an LD transplant. Regression analysis indicated that availability of LDN was independently associated with a 1.9 relative risk of receiving an LD transplant. Kaplan-Meier death-censored 1- and 3-year graft survival rates for ODN transplants were 95.8% and 90.6%, versus 97.5% and 94. 8% for LDN. CONCLUSIONS: The availability of LDN and an LD family education program has doubled the live donor transplantation rate, and outcomes remain excellent.     

Hand-assisted and conventional laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: a comparison of two contemporary techniques

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Laparoscopic nephrectomy may make kidney donation more attractive. Modifications such as hand assistance may improve surgical outcomes. We compared our initial experience with hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy with that of the conventional laparoscopic technique. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two series of similar patients underwent conventional laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN; N = 15) or hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HLDN; N = 29). Operative time, warm ischemia time, estimated blood loss, complications, analgesic use, postoperative recovery, and serum creatinine concentration were compared. RESULTS: Open conversion was required in one HLDN patient because of intra-abdominal adhesions, and this patient was excluded from further analysis. The operative time, time to kidney extraction, and warm ischemia time were significantly shorter in the HLDN group, averaging 204.8 v 275.7 minutes, 173.4 v 239.3 minutes, and 2 minutes 21 seconds v 3 minutes 45 seconds, respectively. The intraoperative complication rates were 3.6% and 13.3%, respectively (P = 0.07). The postoperative complication rates were 6.8% and 6.7%. All grafts were functioning at the end of the study period, and there were no differences in rejection episodes, need for dialysis, complications, or nadir creatinine concentration according to the method of harvest. CONCLUSIONS: Hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy provides shorter operative and warm ischemia times without a significant increase in donor morbidity.     

Laparoscopic v open donor nephrectomy for pediatric kidney recipients: preliminary report of a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Laparoscopic surgery is widely accepted for nephrectomy in adult renal transplantation. The success of this technique has not been compared with open donor nephrectomy (ODN) in children. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this randomized clinical trial, 40 adult kidney donors were randomly divided into two groups: 20 cases of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) and 20 of ODN. Recipients had an age of <15 years. Our exclusion criteria were previous renal transplantation, hemolytic uremic syndrome, focal segmental glomerulosclerosis, oxalosis in the recipients, and multiple renal arteries bilaterally in donors. RESULTS: All donor nephrectomies were completed as scheduled, and no patients undergoing LDN required conversion to open nephrectomy. No patients in either the ODN or the LDN group required reoperation. Acute rejection was diagnosed in six patients receiving kidneys procured by ODN (30%) and 4 patients (20%) receiving kidneys obtained by LDN (P = 0.3). No recipients or donors died. At 1 year, the graft survival times in the ODN and LDN groups were 310.8 +/- 28.8 and 302.7 +/- 28.2 days, respectively (P = 0.8). CONCLUSION: At our medical center, pediatric LDN recipients had graft outcomes similar to those of ODN recipients. We recommend LDN for harvest of kidneys for pediatric recipients at experienced centers.     

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 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.     

Comparison of laparoscopic and open donor nephrectomy: UK experience

A comparison of laparoscopic and open donor nephrectomy is presented by authors from the UK. They found that the laparoscopic approach could safely be offered to patients treated in experienced units and after adequate training fo the surgeon, with no increase in complications or decrease in efficacy. OBJECTIVE: To compare our early experience of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) with a contemporary cohort of conventional open donor nephrectomy (ODN). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Transperitoneal left-sided LDN was offered to carefully selected potential live kidney donors on the basis of vascular anatomy. The first 20 donors who underwent LDN were compared with a control group of 20 patients who had ODN. Donors and recipients were compared for demographics, intraoperative variables, postoperative complications and allograft function. RESULTS: There was no peri-operative mortality in either group. No laparoscopic procedure required open conversion. The operating time was comparable (165 vs 153 min); LDN was associated with significantly less intraoperative blood loss (200 vs 350 mL; Mann-Whitney U, P = 0.01) and hospital stay (3 vs 5 days; P < 0.001). The graft warm ischaemic time was significantly longer for LDN (5 vs 2 min; P < 0.001) but this did not appear to affect either the delayed graft function rate (5% vs 10%, not significant) or serum creatinine level at discharge (125 vs 126 micromol/L). CONCLUSIONS: UK centres with experience of advanced laparoscopy and ODN can safely offer LDN to potential live donors.     

Impact of intraoperative donor management on short-term renal function after laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether intraoperative diuresis, postoperative recovery, and early graft function differ between laparoscopic open nephrectomy (LDN) and open donor nephrectomy (ODN). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy can reduce donor complications in terms of decreased pain and shorter convalescence. Although its technical feasibility has been established, concerns have been raised about the impaired renal function resulting from pneumoperitoneum and short- and long-term function of kidneys removed by LDN. METHODS: Between December 1997 and December 2000, 89 LDNs were performed at the authors' institution. These were compared with 83 conventional ODNs performed between January 1994 and December 1997. Graft function, intraoperative variables, and clinical outcome were compared. RESULTS: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy was attempted in 89 patients and completed in 91% (81/89). Length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the laparoscopic group. During kidney dissection, the amount of fluids administered and intraoperative diuresis were significantly lower for LDN. In recipients, mean serum creatinine was higher after LDN compared with ODN 1 day after surgery. From postoperative days 2 until 28, there were no differences in serum creatinine. Graft survival rates were similar for LDN and ODN. CONCLUSIONS: Donors can benefit from an improvement in postoperative recovery after LDN. Assessment of an adequate perioperative hydration protocol is mandatory to ensure optimal kidney quality during laparoscopic procurement. The initial graft survival and function rates justify continued development and adoption of LDN.     

Technical Modification for Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy to Minimize Testicular Pain: A Complication with Significant Morbidity

The laparoscopic approach to donor nephrectomy is becoming increasingly common. While it is felt that the recovery from laparoscopic nephrectomy is quicker and less painful, a number of complications have been reported. A rarely reported on complication in the literature with significant morbidity is ipsilateral orchalgia. From 1998 to 2008, 257 hand‐assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomies were performed at our institution. Eight of 129 (6.2%) men complained of de novo ipsilateral orchalgia postoperatively. The average duration of pain was 402 days. Patients reported significant morbidity related to this complication. None, however, required further treatment. Three patients reported that they would reconsider organ donation as a result of testicular pain. Our technique originally included dissection and ligation of the gonadal vein en bloc with the ureter at the level of the left common iliac artery. Since recognizing this complication, we have adopted a gonadal vein sparing approach so as not to disturb the vessel below its point of ligation at the renal vein. To date, 50 patients have undergone the modified technique without experiencing orchalgia. In conclusion, ipsilateral testicular pan is a relatively frequent complication of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy and may be a source of significant morbidity. Using a modified surgical technique, this complication can be reduced or eradicated.     

Psychosocial and physical impairment after mini-incision open and laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: A prospective study

BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to prospectively investigate how mini-incision donor nephrectomy (MIDN) and laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) affected the donor's quality of life and fatigue. METHODS: Forty-five donors underwent MIDN and 55 donors underwent LDN. Quality of life and fatigue were recorded preoperatively and four times during one year follow-up on the Short-Form 36 (SF-36) and Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory-20 (MFI-20), respectively. RESULTS: One-year response rates were 89% and 95% following MIDN and LDN, respectively. After MIDN, all dimensions of the SF-36 significantly declined. Most dimensions returned to preoperative values at three months except for "vitality" (six months) and "bodily pain" (12 months). After LDN, the scores of the SF-36 dimensions returned to preoperative values at three months, except for "vitality" and "role physical" (both six months). Between-groups analysis revealed significantly better scores of the SF-36 dimensions "physical function" (P = 0.03) and "bodily pain" (P = 0.04) following LDN at one month postoperatively. Fatigue scores did not significantly differ between the groups at any point in time. General and physical fatigue (MFI-20) remained affected up to one year after either type of surgery. After MIDN, 4% of the donors had returned to work at four weeks postoperatively versus 28% after LDN (P = 0.04). Return to preoperative activity level was not significantly different between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Both procedures clearly impact quality of life and fatigue. The beneficial effect on the quality of life and the earlier return to work encourage us to advocate LDN as the surgical approach to be preferred.     

Kuwait experience in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: first 80 cases

INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) has been adopted rapidly as it offers less postoperative pain, early recovery, and better cosmetic results compared with the open approach. This prospective study investigated the results of the first 80 LDN performed between May 2005 and May 2006, with regard to donor morbidity and effect on graft function. PATIENTS AND METHODS: LDN was attempted in 80 donors by one surgical team. Donors included 68 men and 12 women, ages 22 to 53 years, with body mass indices of 17.9 to 42.4. According to computed tomographic angiography, left nephrectomy was planned in 75 donors and right nephrectomy in 5. RESULTS: LDN was completed successfully in 74 (92.5%) and converted to open in 6 (7.5%) secondary to technical difficulties and operative bleeding. The mean operating time for LDN was 186.16 minutes (range, 95-260 minutes). Mean warm ischemia time (WIT) was 5.7 minutes (range 2-16 minutes). Mean hospital stay was 5.28 days (range, 3-14 days). Two donors (2.5%) were reexplored for postoperative bleeding. Renal function in all donors was satisfactory within 3 months of surgery. Immediate diuresis occurred in 76 (95%) recipients. Acute cellular rejection was diagnosed in 1 recipient. No association was observed between WIT, graft function, development of acute tubular necrosis (ATN), or rejection. Plasma creatinine normalization was clearly associated with donor age. CONCLUSIONS: LDN was found to be a safe procedure with low postoperative morbidity and short recovery time for donors. It can potentially increase the donor pool.     

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.     

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.     

Five-year experience of adoption and evolution of laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy: results from a center without large volume of patients

OBJECTIVES: Despite the advantages of laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy (LDN), this technique is known to have a steep learning curve that makes worldwide adoption challenging, especially in institutions without a large patients volume. Herein, we have reviewed our 5-year experience of adoption and evolution of this surgical technique, examining the donor and recipient outcomes. METHODS: Between September 2002 and June 2007, 40 LDNs were performed consecutively. Our surgical technique was mainly derived from the University of California San Francisco method. We retrospectively reviewed the donor demographics, operative characteristics, perioperative complication of donors/recipients, and outcomes of donors and recipients. RESULTS: Among the 40 cases, 36 (90.0%) were left-sided LDNs. Mean operative time was 335.1 +/- 66.9 minutes, blood loss was 303.9 +/- 333.2 mL, and warm ischemia time was 243.2 +/- 127.0 seconds. Multiple renal arteries required bench arterial reconstruction in 7 (17.5%) donor kidneys. Three renovascular injuries occurred intraoperatively, and 2 (5.0%) required open conversion. The overall postoperative complication rate was 20.0%. Postoperative donor serum creatinine was 1.5 times higher than preoperative serum creatinine. All but one recipient was discharged with adequate renal function. Graft function continues in 36 of the 38 harvested kidneys (94.7%) during the follow-up period. One (2.5%) recipient developed ureteral necrosis, and no recipients developed vascular thrombosis. CONCLUSIONS: LDNs can be performed with careful adoption and evolution in institutions without a large patient volume. The intraoperative complication rate of LDN can be reduced with experience.     

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

Since it first was performed in 1995, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) has grown to be the standard of care in most transplant centers in the United States. This article reviews the current indications, selection criteria, surgical approaches, outcomes, and complications of LDN.