Early and late recipient graft function and donor outcome after laparoscopic vs open adult live donor nephrectomy for pediatric renal transplantation

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopically procured live donor kidney grafts are increasingly transplanted into pediatric recipients. The safety and efficacy of this changed surgical practice are unknown. HYPOTHESIS: Outcomes of laparoscopic vs open donor grafts in recipients 18 years and younger are equivalent. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective review at an academic tertiary care referral center. PATIENTS: Eleven consecutive pediatric recipients of laparoscopically procured kidneys between April 1, 1997, and December 31, 2001, were pair matched for age with 11 recipients of openly procured kidneys between December 1, 1991, and March 31, 1997; the 22 adult donors were also studied. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Recipients: surgical complications, graft function and survival. Donors: perioperative morbidity and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: Twenty (91%) of 22 kidneys were donated by a parent of the recipient. In recipients of laparoscopically procured grafts, we observed significantly lower creatinine clearances and higher creatinine levels on days 1, 4, and 6, but by 1 month, graft function was similar in both groups. No significant differences in surgical complications, delayed function, acute and chronic rejection, and graft survival rates were found. No laparoscopic or open donor required blood transfusion, reoperation, or hospital readmission. One laparoscopic donor (9%) was converted to open nephrectomy. For laparoscopic vs open donors, median operative time was longer (difference, 67 min; P =.08), but median postoperative length of stay was significantly shorter (3 vs 5 days; P =.02). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy has no adverse impact on pediatric recipient outcomes. For donors, the laparoscopic operation is safe and the hospital stay is shortened. These results support the continued use of laparoscopically procured live donor kidneys in pediatric renal transplantation.     

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 live donor nephrectomy: trends in donor and recipient morbidity following 381 consecutive cases

OBJECTIVE: To review a single-institution 6-year experience with laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy detailing the technical modifications, clinical results, as well as the trends in donor and recipient morbidity. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Since 1995, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy has had a significant impact on the field of renal transplantation, resulting in decreased donor morbidity, without jeopardizing procurement of a high-quality renal allograft. This technique has become the preferred method of allograft procurement for many transplantation centers worldwide but still remains technically challenging with a steep learning curve. METHODS: Records from 381 consecutive laparoscopic donor nephrectomies were reviewed with evaluation of both donor and recipient outcomes. Trends in donor and recipient complications were assessed over time by comparing the outcomes between four equally divided groups. RESULTS: All 381 kidneys were procured and transplanted successfully with only 8 (2.1%) open conversions. Mean operative time was 252.9 +/- 55.7 minutes, estimated blood loss 344.2 +/- 690.3 mL, warm ischemia time 4.9 +/- 3.4 minutes, and donor length of stay was 3.3 +/- 4.5 days. There was a significant decline in total donor complications, allograft loss, and rate of vascular thrombosis with experience. The rate of ureteral complications declined significantly when comparing our early (Group A) versus later (Groups B-D) experience. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy has remained a safe, less invasive, and effective technique for renal allograft procurement. Over our 6-year experience and with specific refinements in surgical technique, we have observed a decline in both donor and recipient morbidity following laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy.     

Open versus laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: a focus on the safety of donors and the need for a donor registry

PURPOSE: A review of the existing literature showed that the subject of live donor nephrectomy is a seat of underreporting and underestimation of complications. We provide a systematic comparison between laparoscopic and open live donor nephrectomy with special emphasis on the safety of donors and grafts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The PubMed literature database was searched from inception to October 2006. A comparison was made between laparoscopic and open live donor nephrectomy regarding donor safety and graft efficacy. RESULTS: The review included 69 studies. There were 7 randomized controlled trials, 5 prospective nonrandomized studies, 22 retrospective controlled studies, 26 large (greater than 100 donors), retrospective, noncontrolled studies, 8 case reports and 1 experimental study. Most investigators concluded that, compared to open live donor nephrectomy, laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy provides equal graft function, an equal rejection rate, equal urological complications, and equal patient and graft survival. Analgesic requirements, pain data, hospital stay and time to return to work are significantly in favor of the laparoscopic procedure. On the other hand, laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy has the disadvantages of increased operative time, increased warm ischemia time and increased major complications requiring reoperation. In terms of donor safety at least 8 perioperative deaths were recorded after laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. These perioperative deaths were not documented in recent review articles. Ten perioperative deaths were reported with open live donor nephrectomy by 1991. No perioperative mortalities have been recorded following open live donor nephrectomy since 1991. Regarding graft safety, at least 15 graft losses directly related to the surgical technique of laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy were found but none was emphasized in recent review articles. The incidence of graft loss due to technical reasons in the early reports of open live donor nephrectomy was not properly documented in the literature. CONCLUSIONS: We are in need of a live organ donor registry to determine the combined experience of complications and long-term outcomes, rather than short-term reports from single institutions. Like all other new techniques, laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy should be developed and improved at a few centers of excellence to avoid the loss of a donor or a graft.     

Are there anatomical barriers to laparoscopic donor nephrectomy?

Background: The aim of this study was to analyse the effect of the right donor kidney and multiple arteries, on donor and recipient outcomes in the era of laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (LLDN). Methods: We retrospectively analysed the 200 donors and recipients who underwent a planned laparoscopic nephrectomy at two hospitals between September 1998 and December 2006. The impact of donor right kidney and multiple donor renal arteries on operative time, hospital stay, graft function, and donor and recipient complications were analysed. Results: Of the total cohort (n = 200), 140 (70%) were classified as Simple LLDN (left live donor kidney with single renal artery). The Complex LLDN group (n = 60) contained all right‐sided kidney (n = 28) and left‐sided kidneys with multiple renal arteries (n = 32). Baseline characteristics, extraction time, conversion to open, length of admission, overall graft function and complication rates were similar between the simple and complex groups. The second warm ischaemic time in the Simple LLDN group was slightly shorter than the Complex LLDN group (32 versus 36 min P = 0.016). The 1‐month post‐operative recipient serum creatinine level was lower in the Simple LLDN group when compared with the Complex LLDN group (117 versus 125 µmol/L P = 0.025). There was no difference in post op dialysis, acute rejection within 3 months or graft survival between the Simple and Complex LLDN groups. Conclusion: Laparoscopic procurements of right kidneys and kidneys with multiple arteries were safe and yielded kidneys with excellent function comparable with those of laparoscopic left donor nephrectomy with single artery.     

Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy for right kidneys: Experience in a German community hospital

Background Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy has become the new gold standard for kidney procurement in many high-volume transplant centres worldwide, but it is often limited to left-sided donor kidneys. Concerns about adequate anatomical renal vessel length and sufficient surgical exposure are the main obstacles to the use of the laparoscopic approach for right kidney live donors as well. Material and methods From 1998 to 2006 we performed laparoscopic kidney procurement in 73 live kidney donors on an intention-to-treat basis, harvesting a total of 48 left (LKG) and 25 right kidneys (RKG) for transplantation. We compared these two groups with respect to operating time, conversion rate, complications, hospital stay, and recipient outcome. Results There were no differences in outcome of donor patients after left (D-LKG) or right laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (D-RKG). Operating time was 160 min in D-RKG versus 164 min in D-LKG. Warm ischemia was below 150 s in both groups. Hospital stay was 7.0 (D-RKG) versus 6.7 days (D-LKG). Negative events on the donor site were one temporary nerve irritation in each group and one postoperative retroperitoneal hematoma in the left kidney group. Reasons to convert to open nephrectomy were bleeding in two patients in the left kidney group and adhesions in one patient in the right kidney group. The outcome of the recipients after left (R-LKG) or right kidney (R-RKG) transplantation was similar. One kidney was lost due to renal vein thrombosis (R-LKG). Postoperative ureter complications occurred in one patient of each group. One patient of the R-RKG and two patients of the R-LKG required lymphocele fenestration. All other kidney transplants worked without problems. Conclusion Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is a safe procedure and has been established as the method of choice for live kidney donation in our clinic. Laparoscopic procurement of right and left kidneys can be performed with comparable quality and outcome for donors and recipients.     

Retroperitoneoscopic hand-assisted nephrectomy for live donor: Akita University experience

PURPOSE: Laparoscopic nephrectomy is being employed in renal transplantation because of its minimal invasiveness, and several modifications in surgical procedures have been proposed. We devised a new technique of retroperitoneoscopic hand-assisted nephrectomy (RHAN) for live donor. We report the early experiences with this technique in 5 cases of live renal graft donor. TECHNIQUES AND SUBJECTS: The donors are placed in a modified decubitus position under general anesthesia, and all the laparoscopic surgical procedures were performed retroperitoneally using 3 port sites and a sealing device (LAP DISC) under a pressure of 10 mmHg. The LAP DISC is placed through a para-rectus abdominal skin incision of approximately 8 cm in length into the retroperitoneal cavity and used as a rout for instrumental as well as hand-assisted manipulations during the surgery. The hand-assistance through the LAP DISC made the surgical manipulation considerably easier and allowed the immediate removal of the graft after the interruption of the renal blood flow. This procedure was applied to 5 subjects, 4 in the left and one in the right kidney. RESULTS: The operating data were 264-359 min for operating time, 0.9-3.9 min for warm ischemic time and 40-755 ml for intra-operative blood loss, respectively. The serum creatinine level of the recipients at day 7 was 0.9-2.7 mg/dl. These values, except for operating time, were at the same range as those of the open live donor nephrectomy in our clinic. The 5 donors discharged 7-9 days after RHAN without any surgical complications. CONCLUSION: Our technique of RHAN will be a minimal invasive one in terms of both for the donors and the grafts, and be widely acceptable for donor nephrectomy on either side.     

Why we consistently use the left donor kidney in living related transplantation: initial experience of right laparoscopic donor nephrectomy and comparison with left nephrectomy

OBJECTIVES: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy has become the method of choice for removal of living donor kidneys. However, the majority of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy cases have been limited to the left side owing to technical difficulties and renal vessel length. This study described the technique and compared donor outcomes and graft function of right and left laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Among 25 patients, 6 consecutive donors underwent right laparoscopic donor nephrectomy from March 2002 to January 2005. They were compared to 19 patients with left laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. We compared operative times, warm ischemia times, serial creatinines, creatinine clearances, complications, and graft function. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in any metric. The operative times (303 min. vs 274 min., P > .05) and warm ischemia times (133 s vs 186 s, P > .05) were similar between right and left laparoscopic donor nephrectomy procedures. In left laparoscopic donor nephrectomy, 3 patients had transient brachial plexus neuropathies. No major complication occurred among patients undergoing right laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. This study demonstrated that both donor and recipient outcomes are similar for right and left laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent use of the left kidney has not affected clinical outcomes. With hand-assisted laparoscopy, the right laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is safe, providing excellent graft function.     

Hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy: experience from the first 75 consecutive cases

BACKGROUND: The two major life-threatening complications associated with laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy are sudden severe bleeding and intestinal injury. A combined technique-hand-assisted and retroperitoneoscopic (HARS)-reduces the risk of these life-threatening complications. In this study, we report on our experience from the first 75 consecutive HARS operations. METHODS: The data has been collected prospectively according to intention to treat and includes all consecutive donors operated with the HARS technique. Warm ischemia time, operating time, and blood loss were recorded. Complications, convalescence, and allograft outcome were followed postoperatively with a mean follow-up of 701 (range 60-1438) days. RESULTS: The mean operating time was 138 (range 85-260) minutes and the mean warm ischemia time 175 (85-510) seconds. The operative time was significantly longer in male donors. The mean bleeding was 176 (50-700) ml. There were no conversions to open surgery. Major complications comprised one pulmonary embolus and one donor required 2 units of blood transfusion. One donor was reoperated due to suspicion of trocar hernia. Nine patients experienced minor complications (fever, n=4; urinary tract infection, n=2; chylous ascites, n=1; orchialgia, n=1; subcostal pain, n=1). All except two kidneys had immediate onset of function. Neither of these could, however, be attributed to the donor operation. One recipient experienced urinary leakage and one a stenosis. Recipient and graft survival were 99% and 96%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that HARS facilitates the procedure by enabling short operating times and at the same time significantly reducing the risks associated with endoscopic live donor nephrectomy.     

Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: the recipient

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy offers advantages to the donor in terms of decreased pain and shorter recuperation. Heretofore no detailed analysis of the recipient of laparoscopically procured kidneys has been performed. The purpose of this study was to determine whether laparoscopic donor nephrectomy had any deleterious effect on the recipient. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of all live donor renal transplantations performed from January 1995 through April 1998. The control group received kidneys procured via a standard flank approach (Open). Rejection was diagnosed histologically. Creatinine clearance was calculated using the Cockroft-Gault formula. RESULTS: A total of 110 patients received kidneys from laparoscopic (Lap) and 48 from open donors. One-year recipient (100% vs. 97.0%) and graft (93.5% vs. 91.1%) survival rates were similar for the Open and Lap groups, respectively. A similar incidence of vascular thrombosis (3.4% vs. 2.1%, P=NS) and ureteral complications (9.1% vs. 6.3%, P=NS) were seen in the Lap and Open groups, respectively. The incidence of acute rejection for the first month was 30.1% for the Lap group and 31.9% for the Open group (P=NS). The rate of decline of serum creatinine level in the early posttransplantation period was initially greater in the Open group, but by postoperative day 4 no significant difference existed. No difference was observed in allograft function long-term. The median length of hospital stay was 7.0 days for both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy does not adversely effect recipient outcome. The previously demonstrated benefits to the donor, and the increased willingness of individuals to undergo live kidney donation, coupled with the acceptable outcomes experienced by recipients of laparoscopically procured kidneys justifies the continued development and adoption of this operation.     

Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: Current practice and results of renal transplantation

Objective: In 2009, 1659 patients with end‐stage renal failure in Hong Kong were waiting for a renal transplant. The overall number of renal transplants carried out locally remains low, with an even lower number being live donor donations. Yet, live donor kidney transplantation yields results that are consistently superior to those of deceased donor kidney transplantation, and laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) is increasingly accepted worldwide as a safe and preferred surgical option. We aim to evaluate the outcome of LDN in our setting, and to compare with that of deceased donors in this retrospective review. Patients and Methods: A total of 12 patients received LDN over the study period of 2006–2009. Standard left transperitoneal LDN was carried out. Grafts including three with double vessels were prepared using the bench technique. The postoperative outcomes up to 1 year for both the donors and the recipients were studied. Contemporary results for the 47 deceased donor kidneys were studied and compared. Results: All donors had an eventful recovery. The operating time was 225.0 ± 67.4 min. The hospital stay was 5.6 ± 2.3 days. The recipient outcomes including hospital stay and creatinine levels at discharge and 1 year were 11 days, 121 umol/L and 116 umol/L, respectively. Specifically, no ureteric stricture or graft loss was noted at the 1‐year follow up. Recipient complications included haematoma (1 patient), renal artery stenosis (1 patient) and redo of vascular anastomosis (1 patient). In contrast, the deceased donor graft recipients had a hospital stay of 11 days, and creatinine levels of 205 umol/L on discharge and 205 umol/L at 1 year, respectively. The delayed graft function rates for the live donor and deceased donors group were 0% and 14.9%, whereas the 1‐year graft survival rates were 100% and 87.2% respectively. Conclusion: The results showed that the donor morbidity rate was low, as reflected by the short hospital stay. Also, the overall parameters of recipients were good. In particular, no ureteric stricture was noted, and graft survival was 100% at 1 year. Living donor kidney transplant program using the laparoscopic technique is a viable option to improve the pool of kidneys for transplantation.     

Comparison of laparoscopic versus hand-assisted live donor nephrectomy

BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to compare hand-assisted laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy with the classic laparoscopic method, using meta-analytical techniques. METHODS: A literature search was performed for studies comparing hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy with classic laparoscopic nephrectomy for live kidney donation between 1999 and 2005. The following end points were evaluated: operative time, warm ischemia time, intraoperative adverse events, donor and recipient postoperative complications, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: Nine comparative studies matched the selection criteria, reporting on 376 patients, of whom 202 (53.7%) had hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy and 174 (46.3%) had the classic laparoscopic technique. Conversion to open surgery was 2.97% in the hand-assisted group and 4.60% in the laparoscopic group (P=0.35). Total operative and warm ischemia times were significantly shorter for hand-assisted laparoscopy by 30.03 minutes (P=0.02) and 1.14 minutes (P<0.001), respectively. The intraoperative blood loss was less for the hand-assisted laparoscopy group by 34.16 mL (P=0.008), although intraoperative (3.46% vs. 7.47%; P=0.24) and postoperative (5.94% vs. 10.34%; P=0.30) donor complications and recipient complications (including delayed graft function and primary nonfunction, 8.41% vs. 7.42%; P=0.32) were similar between the hand-assisted and laparoscopic groups. CONCLUSION: Hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy appeared to have the same donor and recipient complication rate with standard laparoscopy but offered substantial advantages in terms of shortened operative and warm ischemia time as well as decreased intraoperative bleeding.     

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.     

Retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy in a patient with a double inferior vena cava

BACKGROUND: Vascular anomalies are considered a contraindication for laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. We report a successful hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy from a donor with a double inferior vena cava. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 37-year-old woman wanted to donate a kidney to her 44-year-old boyfriend who had hypertensive nephropathy. Preoperative donor imaging showed a double inferior vena cava. Each renal vein drains into the ipsilateral inferior vena cava division, making the left renal vein short. A single renal artery, vein, and ureter were noted on both sides. A hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic left nephrectomy was performed. Blood loss was minimal and the warm ischemia time was 2 minutes. Renal transplantation was performed with good initial perfusion and urine output. Cold ischemia and rewarming time was 25 minutes. RESULTS: The donor postoperative period was uneventful with infrequent need for pain relief. The donor was discharged in good condition 3 days postoperatively. The donor's kidney functions were within the normal range at follow-up 4 months postoperatively. The recipient was discharged in good condition 7 days postoperatively. The recipient is alive with good graft function and unremarkable complications at 4 month follow-up. CONCLUSION: Although vascular anomalies present a surgical challenge, we have shown the feasibility of performing hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy in a donor with a double vena cava and short renal vein. With comprehensive preoperative assessment, laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy can be done safely in donors with anatomical anomalies. This may increase the number of living donor kidney transplants as it offers lower postoperative morbidity and economic disincentives for potential donors.     

Retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy: a retrospective, non-randomized comparison of early complications, donor and recipient outcome with the standard open approach

OBJECTIVES: We retrospectively performed a comparative analysis of retroperitoneoscopic and open donor nephrectomy in terms of donor complications, as well as recipient complications and functional graft outcome. METHODS: A total of 134 donor nephrectomies including 69 open (ODN) and 65 retroperitoneoscopic (RDN) nephrectomies was analyzed retrospectively. Both groups were comparable in terms of age, body mass index (BMI), operating time (OPT), warm ischemia time (WIT) and blood loss. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences with respect to recipient outcome, mean values for age, BMI, OPT and cold ischemia time (CIT). The overall donor complication rate did not differ. Early functional graft follow-up showed significant differences in 24 h-urine output between the two groups (p<0.001), but serum creatinine was comparable after 7, 30, 180 and 365 days. The early rejection rate in the recipients was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSION: Retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy (RDN) provides comparable perioperative features, such as operating time, warm ischemia time (WIT) and overall complication rate to the open donor nephrectomy (ODN). Additionally, it has no negative impact on recipients' operating time, graft ischemia and early graft function.     

Results and complications of 50 laparoscopic nephrectomies for live donor renal transplantation

Living donors represent 30% of kidneys for renal transplantation. Laparoscopic nephrectomy is the best surgical procedure due to its clear advantages: low morbidity, less blood transfusion requirements, and shorter donor hospitalization. From March 2002 to August 2004, we performed 50 laparoscopic nephrectomies for transplantation to recipients who were prescribed tacrolimus (0.1 mg/kg bid), mycophenolate mofetil (1 gr bid), and prednisone (0.5-1 mg/kg per day PO from 48 hours before transplantation). Mean surgery time was 170 minutes (120-260); warm ischemia time, 3.1 minutes (1.5-10); and cold ischemia time, 1.27 hours (0.85-4). Mean bleeding was 270 cc (100-900), and mean donor hospitalization was 5.5 days (3-9). Four cases required conversion of the laparoscopic procedure to open surgery because of bleeding. Seventy-two hours posttransplantation, the mean plasma creatinine was 170 micromol/L. None of the patients suffered delayed graft function. Eighteen percent experienced acute rejection episodes. Donor and recipient survivals were 100% at 1 year, and graft survival, 94% (kidney losses were due to acute rejection, severe acute pancreatitis, and surgical complications).     

Laparoscopic adult donor nephrectomy for pediatric renal transplantation

To evaluate retrospectively our laparoscopic adult donor nephrectomy experience for pediatric transplantation. Since February 1995, 7 adult donors have undergone laparoscopic donor nephrectomy for pediatric renal transplantation (recipients younger than 18 years and weighing less than 30 kg). The outcomes of these donors and pediatric recipients were evaluated. The 7 laparoscopic renal donors had a median operative time of 306 minutes, median allograft warm ischemia time of 275 seconds, median blood loss of 200 mL, median hospital stay of 3 days, and 14.2% overall complication rate. No graft loss or patient mortality occurred. The pediatric recipients of the laparoscopic live-donor allografts had a median creatinine clearance level of 52.1, 52.1, 44, and 41.1 mL/min at 3, 6, 12, and 18 months, respectively. The overall complication rate was 14.2%. The 1 and 2-year graft survival rates were 100%. No mortality occurred in the pediatric recipients. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is well tolerated by the adult donors and appears to provide acceptable recipient and allograft outcomes in the pediatric population.     

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.     

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.     

Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy in a patient with duplex inferior vena cava

BACKGROUND: Modern imaging, such as CT and MRI, improves the preoperative assessment for variants of renal vasculature. We present a kidney donor with a duplex inferior vena cava. In conjunction with CT and hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery, live donor nephrectomy was performed successfully. METHODS: A 35-year-old woman wished to donate a kidney to her son. Preoperative CT showed normal functional kidneys without uretal duplication. A duplex inferior vena cava was noted below the level of the left renal vein. A hand-assisted transperitoneal laparoscopic left nephrectomy was performed. Blood loss was minimal and the warm ischemia time was 3 minutes. Renal transplantation was performed with good initial perfusion and urine output. RESULTS: The donor was discharged in good condition at 3 days postoperatively. Both donor and recipient are alive with good renal function and without late surgical complications at 9 months. CONCLUSIONS: Live donor nephrectomy is unique as it involves two different patients. Benefits from laparoscopic operation include less pain, shorter hospital stay, earlier resumption of normal food intake, and earlier return to full activity. Graft function was not deleteriously affected and the survival of graft and recipient was not affected. Vascular anomalies, although uncommon, had a significant influence on live renal transplantation. Our patient represents a case of a rare venous anomaly, which has an an incidence rate of 0.5% to 3%. Helical CT with reconstruction of vascular anatomy helped in evaluating donor vasculature. In conjunction with modern imaging techniques and laparoscopic operation, live donor nephrectomy can be performed safely, even in patients with vascular anomalies.