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.     

Manual specimen retrieval without a pneumoperitoneum preserving device for laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy

PURPOSE: We present a novel method of kidney retrieval based on a modified Pfannenstiel incision and insertion of the assistant hand into the abdominal cavity without a device for pneumoperitoneum preservation. This maneuver is performed as the last step in pure laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. Also, we assessed the effect of this technique on warm ischemia time compared with the standard laparoscopic bag retrieval technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 70 laparoscopic live donor nephrectomies were performed at our institutions between October 1998 and March 2001. The first 43 cases were completed using an EndoCatch bag device (Auto Suture, Norwalk, Connecticut) for specimen retrieval, while the last 27 were done using a novel manual retrieval technique through a modified Pfannenstiel incision. We retrospectively analyzed the results in regard to warm ischemia time and intraoperative complications related to the procedure. RESULTS: A statistically significant difference was noted in the EndoCatch and manual retrieval groups in regard to warm ischemia time (p <0.001). There were 2 complications related to the EndoCatch device and none related to the manual technique. No differences were detected regarding recipient outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Manual specimen retrieval after live donor nephrectomy allows shorter warm ischemia time, while saving the cost of an EndoCatch bag or pneumoperitoneum preserving device that would be used during hand assisted live donor nephrectomy. It was shown to be a safe method without increased donor morbidity.     

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.     

Hand-assisted laparoscopic and open living donor nephrectomy in Korea

BACKGROUND: We compared the results of hand-assisted laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy (LLDN) and conventional open living donor nephrectomy (OLDN). METHODS: The clinical data on 49 hand-assisted LLDN and 21 OLDN on the left side performed at two institutions in Korea from January 2001 to February 2003 were reviewed. Demographic data of donors and recipients were similar in the two groups. RESULTS: There was one conversion to an open procedure due to bleeding in the LLDN group. The median operation times (180 min in LLDN versus 170 min in OLDN) and warm ischemic times (2.5 min in LLDN versus 2.0 min in OLDN) in the two groups were similar. The estimated mean blood loss, duration of hospital stay and complication rate was also similar in the two groups. The LLDN group reported less pain (visual analog scale) postoperatively (4.1 versus 5.3), but this was not significant (P=0.058). The time to oral intake in the LLDN group was significantly longer by an average of 1 day (P=0.001). Return to work was sooner in the LLDN group (4.0 weeks versus 6.0 weeks; P=0.026). The recipient graft function was equivalent between the two groups. Hand-assisted LLDN appears to be a safe and effective alternative to OLDN. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that this technique may give the ability provide grafts of similar quality to OLDN, while extending to the donors the advantages of a traditional LLDN procedure.     

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.     

Donor nephrectomy: A comparison of techniques and results of open, hand assisted and full laparoscopic nephrectomy

PURPOSE: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LAP) has been gaining more popularity among kidney donors and transplant surgeons. There have been some concerns about the function of kidney grafts harvested by laparoscopic procedures. We report our results of LAP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective data were collected for our donor nephrectomy operations. A telephone survey was done by an independent investigator on the impact of surgery on quality of life. Graft function was also evaluated by serial serum creatinine and mercaptoacetyltriglycine renal nuclear scans. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients were included in the study; of whom 55 underwent open donor nephrectomy (OD), 28 underwent LAP and 17 underwent hand assisted donor nephrectomy (HAL). Mean patient age was 39 +/- 12 years and it was similar in all groups. Mean operative time was 306 +/- 40 minutes for LAP, 294 +/- 42 minutes for HAL and 163 +/- 24 minutes for OD (p = 0.001). Laparoscopic operative time was decreased to 180 +/- 56 minutes for LAP and 155 +/- 40 minutes for HAL in the last 10 patients. Mean estimated blood loss was 200 +/- 107 cc for LAP, 167 +/- 70 cc for HAL and 320 +/- 99 cc for OD (p = 0.0001). Mean warm ischemia time was 3 +/- 2 minutes for LAP, 2 +/- 2 minutes for HAL and 2 +/- 1 minutes for OD (p = 0.002). Postoperative hospitalization was 2 +/- 2 days for LAP and 3 +/- 2 days for OD (p = 0.01). LAP required 30% less narcotic medicine than OD postoperatively (p = 0.04). There were no major complications in LAP cases and no complete or partial graft loss was noted. Mean followup was 7 months. Recipient creatinine was not significantly different for kidneys harvested by LAP or OD (p = 0.5). Diuretic mercaptoacetyltriglycine renograms were performed in all recipients 1 to 3 days after surgery and mean effective renal plasma flow was similar for the 3 groups (p = 0.9). According to telephone survey results 85% of LAP, 71% of HAL and 43% of OD patients reported a return to normal physical activity within 4 weeks after surgery. Similarly 74% of LAP, 62% of HAL and 26% of OD patients were able to return to work within 4 weeks after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Our data show no significant difference in graft function between LAP and OD. LAP and HAL were safe and complications were minimal. The main difference was that patients treated with LAP and HAL returned to normal physical activity and work significantly earlier than those who underwent OD.     

Hand assisted retroperitoneoscopic living donor nephrectomy in elderly donors

PURPOSE: We assessed the influence of HARDN on residual donor kidney and allograft function, invasiveness and morbidity in elderly living donors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 89 living donors underwent nephrectomy before September 2004 at our institution. The 18 donors who were 65 years or older included 4 of 27 with ODN and 14 of 62 with HARDN. RESULTS: In older (65 years or older) donors mean operative time, mean blood loss and warm ischemia time in the HARDN group did not differ from those in the ODN group. None of the donors had major complications. Older donors with HARDN had a tendency toward a shorter hospital stay than those with ODN. Postoperative serum creatinine in older donors with HARDN was higher than that in younger donors with HARDN, while there was no difference in postoperative serum creatinine between older donors with HARDN and those with ODN. The frequency of allograft losses tended to be higher in older than in younger kidneys (4 of 18 vs 5 of 71, p = 0.054). However, most allograft losses did not seem to be related to surgical technique. CONCLUSIONS: Although further studies, especially with long-term followup, are necessary, HARDN is suggested to be safe and minimally invasive surgery even in elderly donors and to be comparable to open surgery in terms of morbidity, the residual donor kidney and allograft function.     

Factors related to delayed graft function after laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy

PURPOSE: Delayed graft function after live donor transplantation affects 5% to 10% of recipients regardless of procurement technique. This delay in function is associated with an increased risk of rejection and decreased graft survival. In the present study we critically assess allograft recovery to identify the risk factors related to delayed graft function. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed donor and recipient medical records from 100 consecutive laparoscopic live donor nephrectomies from August 1997 to October 2001. Four criteria were used to classify delayed graft function: I) requirement of dialysis in postoperative week 1, II) creatinine 2.5 mg/dl or greater at postoperative day 5, III) time to half peak activity (mercaptoacetyltriglycine renal scan) at postoperative day 5 greater than 12.2 minutes (normal range 1 to 12.2) and IV) time to peak activity (mercaptoacetyltriglycine renal scan) at day 5 greater than 6.5 minutes (normal range 2.1 to 6.5). Patients could qualify for multiple outcome categories. Patients who did not match any of these criteria were classified as having normal renal function (outcome 0). RESULTS: The number of patients in the delayed graft function categories were 5 with outcome I, 14 with outcome II, 39 with outcome III and 24 with outcome IV. There were 23 patients represented in more than 1 category and 59 patients were classified as having normal function. Recipient age, donor/recipient gender relationship, unrelated highly mismatched donors and cold/total preservation time were identified as risk factors related to impaired early renal function recovery. None of the variables related to the laparoscopic technique itself represented risk factors for delayed graft function. CONCLUSIONS: Female donor kidneys into male recipients and highly HLA mismatched donors represent factors that may be controlled by donor selection when feasible. All attempts should be made to decrease cold ischemia time and, therefore, total preservation time. Prolonged carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum, warm ischemia time, renal artery length or use of right kidney did not adversely affect the functional outcome of the allografts procured laparoscopically.     

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.     

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in obese donors: easier to implement in overweight women?

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) has been proven feasible in overweight individuals, but remains technically challenging. As the perirenal fat distribution and consistency significantly differ between men and women, we investigated possible differences between the genders. Prospectively collected data of 37 female and 39 male donors with a body mass index (BMI) over 27 who underwent total LDN were compared. Ninety-one donors with a BMI <25 served as controls. Clinically relevant differences were not observed between men and women of normal weight. In overweight donors, two (5%) procedures were converted to open in females and five (13%) in males. None of these conversions in females, but four conversions in males, appeared to be related to the donor's perirenal fat (P = 0.05). Operation time (median 210 vs. 241 min, P = 0.01) and blood loss (median 100 vs. 200 ml, P = 0.04) were favorable in female donors. The number of complications did not significantly differ. Total LDN in overweight female donors does not lead to increased operation times, morbidity or technical complications. In contrast, the outcome in obese males seems to be less advantageous, indicating that total LDN in overweight women can be advocated as a routine procedure but in obese men reluctance seems justified.     

Clinical skills acquisition for hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

PURPOSE: The learning curve associated with laparoscopic surgery may be associated with higher patient risk, and in the setting of kidney donation such risk may be unacceptable. We characterize the learning curve for hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in the context of a urology training program, and establish a case volume threshold after which improvements in laparoscopic skill can be demonstrated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 245 consecutive laparoscopic cases, including 111 donor nephrectomies, performed in 2 (1/2) years to characterize various measures of experience. Documentation of resident involvement in each case was made by a single surgeon and collected prospectively. Outcomes assessed included operative time, blood loss and intraoperative complications. RESULTS: Of the 111 hand-assisted donor nephrectomies the resident was surgeon in 47%. Operative time proved a reliable and sensitive measure of surgeon experience. Increasing laparoscopic experience, as measured by several parameters, was associated with decreasing operative time (each p <0.02). Measurable improvements in laparoscopic skill were realized after participating in 13 (p = 0.007) or serving as surgeon in as few as 6 (p = 0.02) hand-assisted donor nephrectomies. Conversion (2%) and intraoperative complication rates (3%) were low. CONCLUSIONS: Skills for hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy can be safely taught in the context of a urology training program independent of resident training level. We documented measurable improvements in laparoscopic skill as gauged by operative time. Our findings provide a basis by which expectations can be set for laparoscopic skill acquisition in the context of a residency program and for the laparoscopically na?ve surgeon.     

Comparison of hand-assisted laparoscopic and open donor nephrectomy in living donors

Objectives:   Although the advent of (hand-assisted) laparoscopic donor nephrectomy has had a positive effect on the donor pool, there is still some concern about the increased morbidity and safety of the laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. The aim of this study was to compare the results of hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALD) with open donor nephrectomy (ODN).
Methods:   A single-center non-randomized analysis of 202 living donor kidney transplantations (44 ODN, 158 HALD) between January 1995 and April 2006 was conducted.
Results:   The left kidney was harvested in 75% in the ODN group and 53% in the HALD group ( P  = 0.009). There was no conversion in the HALD group. Mean donor operative time for HALD (174 min) was longer than for ODN (124 min, P  < 0.001). The mean donor hospital stay (4.9 days vs 9.6 days, P  < 0.001) was significantly less for HALD. HALD had lower mean creatinine values at day 7 and 1 month ( P  = 0.001 and P  = 0.002) and lower urological complication rates ( P  = 0.02) compared with ODN. The 1-year graft survival rates of the ODN and the HALD group were 84% and 95% ( P  = 0.006), respectively.
Conclusion:   hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is a safe procedure for a donor nephrectomy with potential benefits compared with ODN.     

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   

Open and laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy in Switzerland: a retrospective assessment of clinical outcomes and the motivation to donate.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic living kidney nephrectomy is thought to be associated with reduced morbidity, when compared to open nephrectomy. The purpose of this study was to explore the impact of these techniques on donors' clinical outcomes, satisfaction and motivation to donate. METHODS: Clinical outcomes were retrospectively compared in 152 open (n = 71) or laparoscopic (n = 81) donor procedures. Donor satisfaction and motivation were assessed with a self-administered questionnaire. RESULTS: The complication rate was the same with both procedures and the majority of complications were mild. Laparoscopy was significantly less painful and resulted in an insignificantly faster return to active life. More than 80% of the donors volunteered to donate without pressure. Worries about future health status, pain or scars were not important in the decision to donate. Similarly, only 15% considered the surgical procedure as instrumental for their decision. Few donors currently worried about their health with one kidney and more than 95% of the donors in both groups stated that they would give their kidney again. CONCLUSIONS: Living donor nephrectomy is safe, regardless of the procedure used. Although the laparoscopic nephrectomy offers clear short-term benefits over the open nephrectomy, donors' satisfaction was excellent with both surgical approaches. Moreover, the type of procedure did not seem to influence their decision to donate.     

Modified endoscopic live donor nephrectomy: Retroperitoneoscopy followed by hand-assistance

We have developed a novel modification of previous approaches to donor nephrectomy and herein review our original operative procedure. First, the posterior aspect of the kidney was dissected retroperitoneoscopically and dissection of the renal artery, ureter and gonadal vein was almost completed. Second, the anterior aspect of the kidney was dissected with transperitoneal hand-assistance, and dissection of the renal pedicle from the anterior surface was accomplished easily and safely. This operative procedure was successfully performed for two donors with no intraoperative or postoperative complications. Our modified endoscopic donor nephrectomy is feasible as a minimally invasive procedure because of its safety, and its ability to preserve renal function and establish an excellent operative field for both posterior and anterior aspects of the kidney.     

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.     

A randomized clinical trial of living donor nephrectomy: a plea for a differentiated appraisal of mini-open muscle splitting incision and hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

A randomized controlled trial was designed to compare various outcome variables of the retroperitoneal mini‐open muscle splitting incision (MSI) technique and the transperitoneal hand‐assisted laparoscopic technique (HAL) in performing living donor nephrectomies. Fifty living kidney donors were randomized to MSI or HAL. Primary endpoint was pain experience scored on a visual analogue scale (VAS). After MSI living donors indicated lower median (range) VAS scores at rest than HAL living donors on postoperative day 2.5 [10 (0–44) vs. 15 (0–70), P = 0.043] and day 3 [7 (0–28) vs. 10 (0–91), P = 0.023] and lower VAS scores while coughing on postoperative day 3 [20 (0–73) vs. 42 (6–86), P = 0.001], day 7 [8 (0–66) vs. 33 (3–76), P < 0.001] and day 14 [2 (0–17) vs. 12 (0–51), P = 0.009]. The MSI technique also resulted in reduced morphine requirement, better scores on three domains of the RAND‐36, reduced costs and reduced CRP and IL‐6 levels. The HAL technique was superior in operating time and postoperative decrease of hemoglobin level. The MSI technique is superior to the HAL technique in performing living donor nephrectomies with regard to postoperative pain experience. This study reopens the discussion of the way to go in performing the living donor nephrectomy.     

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: the University of Maryland 6-year experience

PURPOSE: We determined whether the results of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy warranted expansion of the availability of the technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Donor and recipient charts for 738 consecutive laparoscopic living donor nephrectomies have been reviewed. RESULTS: Renal donors were 69% white race and 57% female. Age range was 18 to 74 years. Neither age nor obesity alone were exclusionary criteria. Nephrectomy was left sided in 96%. Donors with body mass index greater than 33 had longer operative times. The extraction site changed from umbilical to suprapubic during the series. Warm ischemia time was 169 seconds. Conversion to open nephrectomy occurred in 1.6% of cases and blood transfusion was required in 1.2%. Major intraoperative complications occurred in 6.8% and major postoperative complications occurred in 17.1% of cases. Hospitalization lasted 64.4 hours. Postoperative donor creatinine was 1.5 times the preoperative level. Recipient serum creatinine averaged 2.0 mg% at 1 week and 1.6 mg% at 1 year. Delayed graft function occurred in 2.6%. However, 9.1% of recipients did not achieve a serum creatinine less than 3.0 mg% within 7 days. The endovascular stapler also created 37 extra arteries for implantation. CONCLUSIONS: Risks of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy to the donor must not be minimized. Rapid conversion to open surgery to control bleeding may be necessary. Nonvascular intraoperative injuries require recognition. Slow bowel function recovery prolongs hospitalization and may indicate unrecognized pancreatitis or small bowel herniation. Surgical technique and complication management have improved. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is now routine but still requires an intense level of attention to prevention of complications.