Influence of laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy in ischemia-reperfusion syndrome and renal function after kidney transplantation: an experimental study

The increase of intra-abdominal pressure during laparoscopic techniques provokes oliguria and reduction of the renal blood flow (RBF). The aim of this study is to evaluate this effect during living donor nephrectomy and its influence in the ischemia-reperfusion syndrome and renal function after kidney transplantation. Autotransplantation was performed using 22 pigs (15 after conventional open nephrectomy and 7 after laparoscopic nephrectomy). During donor nephrectomy a significant reduction in RBF was observed in the laparoscopic group (70 mL/min) vs the open group (260 mL/min) (P<.05). After a cold ischemia period of 24 hours an autotransplantation was performed. During the first hour after revascularization RBF was lower for the laparoscopic than for the open group: 60 vs 180 mL/s at 1 minute and 160 vs 400 mL/s at 60 minutes (P<.05). The decrease of creatinine was slower for the laparoscopic than for the open group during the first posttransplant week (2 vs 1.3 mg/dL on the first day and 1.4 vs 0.8 mg/dL on the seventh day posttransplant, respectively) (P<.05).     

Donante vivo renal. experiencia de cirugía abierta y laparoscópica. hospital la paz

Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy is a rare operation in our country because the complexity of the technique and the expansion of the cadaveric donor. We present our open and laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy from 1984.Material and MethodsFrom 1984 to 2007 we have done 84 live donor nephrectomies; 64 open, 20 laparoscopic surgeries. The transperitoneal approach is preferred in laparoscopy and lumbotomy for the open surgery.ResultsIn the open technique the operating time is 112min (70-155), ischaemia time 20 seconds (15-47) and postoperative hospital stay 4,8 days (3-9). Laparoscopic cases, the operating time is 146 min (90-210), ischaemia time 3 min 15 sec (2-3,25 min) and postoperative hospital stay 3,4 days (2-9).ConclusionsThe laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy is a difficult and demanding technique. It should be done by experienced team in laparoscopic renal surgery. The kidney from a live donor is a very good alternative for the cronic renal failure. It should be offered in our main hospitals.     

Mini-incision Living Donor Nephrectomy and Trans-peritoneal Laparoscopic Nephrectomy: Will There Be a Place for New Evidence?

ObjectivesTo compare mini-incision donor nephrectomy (MDN) with laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) performed by the same surgical team, regarding short- and long-term outcomes.MethodsThree hundred and five patients, who underwent donor nephrectomy in our institution, through an MDN (n = 141) between January 1998-November 2011 and LDN (n = 164) since June 2010-December 2017, were compared.ResultsThe mean operative time for MDN (120 ± 29 minutes) was not significantly different when compared to LDN (113 ± 34 minutes), but when comparing the first 50 LDN and the 50 most recent, we found a reduction in the duration of the procedure. Laparoscopic donors had a shorter warm ischemia time (229 seconds vs 310 seconds, P = .01), particularly the 50 most recent, hospital stay (4.3 days vs 5.9 days, P < .001), and postoperative complications (P = .03). The incidence of graft acute tubular necrosis (ATN) was superior in the MDN (89% vs 25%, P < .001), although there was no significant difference regarding first-year serum creatinine (SCr) and glomerular filtration rate (GFR) (SCr 1.38 mg/dL vs SCr 1.33 mg/dL and GFR 63.7 mL/min vs 63.1 mL/min) comparing the 2 groups. Long-term graft survival did not significantly differ between groups. There was also no relationship between postoperative ATN events and long-term graft function.ConclusionsWith the growing experience of the high-volume centers and with specialized teams, LDN could be considered the most suitable technique for living donor nephrectomy with better results in short-term results (warm ischemia time, hospital stay, and postoperative complications), without difference in long-term outcomes.     

Results in Laparoscopic Living Donor Nephrectomy: A Multicentric Experience

ObjectiveRenal transplantation is the most successful therapy to improve survival and quality of life for patients with end-stage renal disease. Living donors have been used as an alternative to reduce the stay on the waiting list. Laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy has become the standard procedure for renal transplantation. Minimally invasive surgery involves less postoperative pain with less analgesic requirements allowing shorter hospital stay for the donor.Material and MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed demographic and intraoperative data and surgical complications for 46 patients who underwent laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy between March 2001 and March 2011.ResultsMean donor age was 41 years. Mean operative time was 170 ± 45 minutes. The average cold ischemic time was 40 minutes and warm ischemic time was 26 minutes. Twenty-one patients were donors for pediatric receptors. Fourty patients underwent left laparoscopic nephrectomy, the other 6 patients underwent right laparoscopic nephrectomy due to vascular anatomic variant. Right laparoscopic nephrectomy was converted in 1 case (2.2%) due to renal vein laceration without donor morbidity and without compromise of graft function. Renal function at the second day post donor nephrectomy was measured using serum creatinine averaged 1.2 mg/dL with a mean increase of 0.4 mg/dL from baseline, with normalization after 30 days. No patient required blood transfusion, and there were no immediate surgical complications, infections, or mortality. One patient developed an incisional hernia in relation to the site of kidney removal. The mean hospital stay was 5 ± 1 days.ConclusionsLaparoscopic nephrectomy in our experience is a safe technique without postoperative morbidity or mortality. It is associated with low levels of pain, early discharge and early return to physical activity and work, good sense of aesthetic results, and long-term graft function comparable to traditional nephrectomy and cadaveric grafts.     

Modifications of renal blood flow and serum interleukin levels induced by laparoscopic and open living donor nephrectomies for kidney transplant: an experimental study in pigs

The increase of intraabdominal pressure (IAP) during laparoscopy modifies renal blood flow (RBF). However, laparoscopic techniques are less invasive than open procedures. The use of interleukins (IL) to evaluate operative trauma of different surgical techniques is controversial. The aim of the study was to analyze the, modifications induced by laparoscopic and open nephrectomies on RBF, renal function and IL levels. Thirty pigs underwent left nephrectomy, 15 by laparoscopy and 15 by an open approach in an experimental autotransplant model. A significant reduction in RBF was observed among the laparoscopic (80 +/- 27 mL/min) versus the open group (263 +/- 3 mL/min, P < .05). Laparoscopy reduced glomerular filtration (GF) (37.6 +/- 1.1%) to a greater extent than an open technique (80.5 +/- 0.4%; P < .05). Serum levels of IL-2, IL-6, IL-10, and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) were lower during laparoscopic than open nephrectomy: 6.8 +/- 0.6 versus 13 .9 +/- 1.1 pg/mL for IL-2, 46.2 +/- 2.3 versus 84.4 +/- 2.5 pg/mL for IL-6, 26.1 +/- 2.4 versus 92.8 +/- 12.6 pg/mL for IL-10, and 17.6 +/- 2.1 versus 38.5 +/- 4.8 pg/mL for TNF (P <.001). In conclusion, laparoscopic nephrectomy for living donor kidney transplant induced significant reductions in RBF and GF. However, there was less increase in IL levels during laparoscopic than the open approach. The influence of these circumstances on graft function after kidney transplantation is not clearly established.     

Laparoscopic or open surgery for living donor nephrectomy.

BACKGROUND: The anterior extraperitoneal approach for living donor nephrectomy has been used in more than 700 living cases in the unit and proved to be safe for the donor. In 1998, laparoscopic nephrectomy was introduced as an option when technically feasible. We found it essential to investigate the consequences of the new technique. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: One hundred living donor kidney transplantations were performed from 1998 to June 2000, 45 with laparoscopic, 55 with open nephrectomy. The donors took part in a structured interview 4 weeks after the donation and their responses were categorized in three classes. RESULTS: In each group, one recipient had delayed initial function. The serum creatinine levels after 3 and 7 days or the GFR values after 6 months did not differ. One graft has been lost following laparoscopic nephrectomy and four after open surgery. For the laparoscopy donors, the median number of post-operative days in hospital was 5.0 days (range 2-9), vs 6.0 (4-8) after open surgery (NS). The requirement of opoid analgesics post-operatively was 5.0 doses (1-22) vs 6.0 (1-38) (P=0.02); and after 4 weeks, 23 of 45 laparoscopic donors were free of pain vs eight of 55 open nephrectomy donors (P=0.0004). Approximately one-third of all donors felt some restriction of physical activity and the majority complained of impaired physical energy. There were no differences between the groups. The duration of sick-leave after laparoscopic surgery was median 6 (2-19) weeks vs 7 (1-16) (NS). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic nephrectomy is safe. Less post-operative pain is a definite advantage for the donor.     

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.     

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

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

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.     

Renal Hilus Ligation With Single Stapler in Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy

BackgroundLigation of renal hilus is the most important stage of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Laparoscopic staplers are securely used for renal pedicle control. We present our donor nephrectomy cases in which we used 1 stapler for renal artery and vein ligation.MethodsDemographic data, number of arteries and veins, ligation types, operation time, and complication rates are recorded.ResultsOne hundred twenty laparoscopic donor nephrectomy cases who were operated between December 2017 and August 2018 in İstinye University Hospital and İstanbul Aydın University Hospital were retrospectively evaluated. All of the operations were done by 2 surgeons with a fully laparoscopic method. None of the cases were converted to open nephrectomy. There was 1 renal artery in 110 (91.7%) cases, 2 renal arteries in 9 (7.5%) cases, and 3 arteries in 1 (0.8%) case. Renal artery and vein were ligated with single stapler in 115 (95.8%) cases. Double stapler was used in 5 (4.2%) patients. There were no major complications for donors and no implantation problems for grafts.DiscussionLaparoscopic donor nephrectomy is the most used technique for living donor operations. Vascular stapler is securely used for renal artery and vein ligation with high costs. Two or, due to the number of vessels, sometimes 3 staplers are used in the standard technique. In our study, the operation was finished securely in 95.8% of the patients with single stapler use. Single stapler use for ligating renal hilus is safe in kidneys even with suitable multiple arteries and veins in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.     

Experiencia inicial de nefrectomía derecha de donante vivo por laparoscopia

Live donor nephrectomy laparoscopic technique is now standard. However, the right side is controversial because of the short length of the renal vein and the incidence of venous thrombosis.methodsA prospective study of patients live donors since May 2006 to September 2008 in which right nephrectomy was performed by laparoscopic live donor. The placement of trocares was usual and the transperitoneal approach. Incision was used for the extraction of Gibson.ResultsOf the 10 selected patients, 1 was excluded due to conversion to open technique. The criteria for lateralization were sex, renal volume and complex vascular anatomy. 6 patients had made back-table reconstruction surgery with prosthetic vascular due to the length of the renal vein. The average operative time was 158.3 minutes and the bleeding averaged 272 cc. Warm ischemia time averaged 3.2 minutes. The average hospital stay was 1.6 days. 1 recipient presenting delayed graft dysfunctionConclusionsLaparoscopic live donor right nephrectomy offers an excellent quality of graft, being a technique feasible and safe, maintaining the principle of leaving the best kidney donor.     

Overcoming the learning curve in hand-assisted laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy - a study in the animal model

The demand for kidneys in South Africa is staggering. Only 38% of the kidney transplants done in 2008 were from related living donors. Laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy has been shown to have the advantages of decreased postoperative pain, better cosmesis and a quicker return to work when compared with the open technique. With limited surgical expertise, a realistic model was needed to overcome the learning curve. Methods. A total of 21 nephrectomies were performed on 12 pigs. The transperitoneal hand-assisted laparoscopic technique was used. Results. The median operative time was 75 minutes and the median warm ischaemic time 88 seconds. Three cases were aborted owing to major vascular injuries. Discussion. The advent of laparoscopic techniques has been associated with an increase in morbidity and complications in donor and recipient during the initial learning curve. We found that with our porcine model, 21 nephrectomies were adequate in overcoming the learning curve. After 15 nephrectomies no complications were noted.     

Prospective, case matched comparison of hand assisted laparoscopic and open surgical live donor nephrectomy

PURPOSE: The technical difficulty of standard laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy has limited its application. Hand assistance, which takes advantage of the incision necessary for organ removal, facilitates laparoscopy without significant impact on patient recovery. We prospectively compared open surgical and hand assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our first 10 laparoscopic live donor nephrectomies were matched with 40 open donor nephrectomies by gender, age and body mass index. Data were obtained by pain scales, SF-12 survey instruments, questionnaires and chart abstraction. RESULTS: Operative time was longer for the laparoscopic approach (mean 95 versus 215 minutes). However, laparoscopic group patients had a shorter hospital stay compared to those undergoing open surgery (mean 2.9 versus 1.8 days), returned sooner to nonstrenuous activity (mean 19.0 versus 9.9 days) and reported less pain 6 weeks postoperatively (mean 2.3 versus 0.6) (p 相似文献   

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.     

Experience and Security of the Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Nephrectomy of a Living Donor in a Public Health Center

Background

Hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy (HALDN) is currently the procedure of choice for obtaining living donor kidneys for transplantation. In our institution, it has been the standard procedure for 5 years. Previous studies have shown the same function of the graft as that obtained by open surgery, with a lower rate of bleeding and no differences in complications. We sought to demonstrate the experience and safety of HALDN compared with open donor nephrectomy in healthy donors for kidney transplantation.

Evolución de la cirugía abierta versus laparoscópica/robótica: 10 años de cambios en Urología

IntroductionLaparoscopic surgery has been increasingly used in urology in recent years. Laparoscopy has been performed at our center since 2001. Changes over time in the indication of open versus laparoscopic/robotic surgery, hospital stay, and learning curve are reviewed.Materials and methodsA retrospective review of our database from 1997 to the end of 2007. A total of 3622 procedures were performed during this time (endoscopic procedures were excluded): 67,75% open, 26,17% laparoscopic, 2,29% perineal, and 3,78% robotic surgeries. Of these, 83,79% were performed in males and 16,20% in females. Mean patient age was 58,8 years. Data from the study period, including mean hospital stay and changes over time in operating time as a function of the learning curve, were analyzed and compared to data for the last 12 months of the study period.ResultsThe percentages of all surgical procedures performed using a laparoscopic approach in the 1997–2006 versus the last 12 study months were as follows: nephrectomy, 31,8% versus 74,7%; living donor nephrectomy, 93% versus 100%; nephroureterectomy, 28,1% vs. 93,4%; partial nephrectomy, 31,3% vs 87%; and radical prostatectomy, 17,6% versus 73,5% including laparoscopic and robotic approaches. Shorter mean hospital stays and operating times were also seen.ConclusionsUse of the laparoscopic approach has greatly increased in the 10-year period studied. In renal surgery, few indications remain for open surgery. In prostate surgery, introduction of robotic surgery in 2005 and learning of laparoscopy by several of our urologists have dramatically changed the therapeutic approach. Gradual incorporation of laparoscopic surgery has led to a decreased hospital stay and to a shortening of the learning curve.     

Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Versus Open Donor Nephrectomy: A Retrospective Comparison of Perioperative and Functional Results in a Tertiary Care Center in Mexico

Background

Laparoscopic nephrectomy for living donors is the current procedure of choice. Hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN) is the variation of this technique currently used in our institution. Though the advantages and disadvantages have been described for this procedure, the graft function compared with open surgery has been shown to be equal. We compared the outcomes of patients undergoing the former standard open donor nephrectomy (ODN) versus the current HALDN technique.

Methods

In this retrospective, comparative, and analytic study we reviewed our institutional database of renal transplantation procedures from January 2005 to April 2011 for perioperative variables and 1-year follow-up data. Donor renal function was evaluated with serum creatinine concentrations and estimated glomerular filtration rates with the Chronic Kidney Disease–Epidemiology formula. Complications were reported with the Clavien-Dindo classification.

Results

The 190 consecutive donors included 99 ODN and 91 HALDN, who did not show baseline differences. ODN had a shorter mean operative time (217 ± 57.5 vs 270 ± 60.1 minutes) and shorter warm ischemia time (2.12 ± 1.4 vs 4.62 ± 2.7 minutes). HALDN had less operative blood loss (274.4 ± 198.1 vs 202.99 ± 157.1 mL) and shorter in-hospital stay (5.58 ± 2.2 vs 4.23 ± 1.8 days). There were no significant differences in 30-day surgical complications or transfusion requirements. No graft loss was reported. No difference in renal function was observed between the groups at days 1–2 or months 1, 6, or 12 after nephrectomy.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic surgery has replaced conventional open surgery for living renal donors. HALDN is a safe and successful procedure compared with ODN. It is now the procedure of choice in our institution.     

Comparative analysis of the hemodynamic and respiratory parameters during laparoscopic versus open living donor nephrectomy: an experimental model

Increased intrabdominal pressure induced by pneumoperitoneum induces modifications in cardiovascular and respiratory systems. The aim of the study was to analyze the hemodynamic and respiratory modifications produced by pneumoperitoneum during living donor nephrectomy in a porcine experimental model. Twenty pigs underwent left nephrectomy, 10 by laparoscopy and 10 by an open approach. The following parameters were measured: mean arterial pressure (MAP), central venous pressure, cardiac output (CO), systemic vascular resistance (SVR), end tidal CO2 (ETCO2), minute volume (MV), respiratory airway pressure (RAP), and "compliance." Both groups were monitored for cardiac and respiratory systems at basal, 5, 30, and 60 minutes as well as postsurgery. The comparative analysis demonstrated increased CO with a higher difference at 30 minutes (4.33 +/- 0.73 vs 8.54 +/- 1.26 L/min, P < .001); decreased SVR (1118.81 +/- 302.52 vs 663.37 +/- 81.45 dinas x s x cm(-5), P < .001), and elevated MAP among the laparoscopic group (66.5 +/- 11.52 vs 80.25 +/- 2.49 mm Hg, P = .004). Analysis of respiratory modifications showed an initial increase in ETCO2 (44.3 +/- 2.6 vs 54.1 +/- 12.56 mm Hg, P < .035) and a higher MV administered (5.6 +/- 0.1 vs 7.01 +/- 0.96 L/min, P = .03) to the laparoscopy group. An increased RAP was observed at 5 minutes (22.11 +/- 2.76 vs 28.8 +/- 3.68 mm Hg, P < .001), in the laparoscopic group and lower levels of "compliance" at the same moment in that group (16 +/- 1.66 vs 14.9 +/- 4.07 cm H2O). Laparoscopic nephrectomy caused an increase in CO and MAP and decreased SVR. Likewise there were elevations of RAP, ETCO2, and MV and a slight decrease in the "compliance."     

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.     

Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: the University of Maryland 3-year experience

PURPOSE: We determined whether laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy decreases the morbidity of renal donation for the donor, while providing a renal allograft of a quality comparable to that of open donor nephrectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a 3-year period laparoscopic donor nephrectomy was performed via the transperitoneal approach. We evaluated donor and recipient medical records for preoperative donor characteristics, intraoperative parameters and complications, and postoperative recovery and complications. RESULTS: Of the 320 laparoscopic donor nephrectomies performed the left kidney was removed in 97.5%. Intraoperative complications, which developed in 10.4% of cases, tended to occur early in the experience and required conversion to open nephrectomy in 5. Average operative time was 31/2 hours and warm ischemia time was 21/2 minutes. As the series progressed, blood loss as well as laparoscopic port size and number decreased but extraction site size remained constant at 7 cm. Urinary retention, prolonged ileus, thigh numbness and incisional hernia were the most common postoperative complications. Postoperative analgesic requirements were low and average hospitalization was 66 hours. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy appears to be safe and decreases morbidity in the renal donor. Allograft function is comparable to that in open nephrectomy series. The availability of laparoscopic harvesting may be increasing the living donor volunteer pool.