Laparoscopic Live Donor Nephrectomy Research Articles

Néphrectomie pour don de rein : quel système utiliser pour la ligature de l’artère rénale ? Aspects réglementaires et résultats de l’enquête nationale du CTAFU

Polymer Locking Clips (Weck* Hem-o-lok*, Teleflex Medical) are widely used for the vascular control during laparoscopic nephrectomy. However, those clips are contraindicated for use in ligating the renal artery during laparoscopic nephrectomies in living donor patients since 2005. We reviewed regulatory aspects, meta-analysis and guidelines published on the means used to ligate the renal artery during laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy. We although investigated among 31 French kidney transplant centers about their technic to occlude the renal artery. This survey was compared to those previously published in North America and in Europe.

Laparoscopic Right Donor Nephrectomy: A Two-Center Comparative Study.

Introduction As the field of laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy (LLDN) has progressed over the years, there has been a growing emphasis on optimizing surgical techniques and outcomes to ensure the safety and well-being of living kidney donors. The early experiences with right LLDN, marked by challenges and concerns such as high conversion rates to open surgery and early graft loss due to technical reasons, prompted a reevaluation of the approach towardright-sided donor nephrectomies. In this article, we aim to compare the safety and efficacy of right LLDNto left LLDN performed in our centers and to provide valuable insights that can ultimately enhance patient outcomes and ensure the well-being of living organ donors. Methods Between January 2018 and January 2022, we conducted 16 cases of right LLDNand compared them with 134 cases of left LLDN procedures done in the Kingdom of Bahrain and Jordan over the same time period. We analyzed differences in donor age, sex, operative time, warm ischemia time (WIT), graft function, complications, and conversion to open technique. Patient data and surgical outcomes were extracted from medical records and surgical databases. Statistical analysis was conducted to identify significant differences between the two groups. Categorical variables such as complications and safety outcomes were compared using chi-square tests and logistic regression analysis. The primary outcomes of interest included safety metrics such as complication rates, vascular complications, graft loss, and postoperative serum creatinine levels for the recipients. Results Our study showed similar demographics in both groups. However, the operative time was shorter for the left LLDN, with 81 minutes compared to 96 minutes for the right. Warm ischemia times (WITs) were comparable at 4.5 minutes for the left and 5.2 minutes for the right. There was less incidence of delayed graft function on the left side (none in the left group compared to one case in the right group). Both groups had similar six-month graft function in terms of serum creatinine levels (0.98 mg/dL for the left and 1.2 mg/dL for the right), hospital stays (2.5 days for the left and 2.8 days for the right), and estimated blood loss (EBL) (90 mL for the left and 50 mL for the right). Additionally, no blood transfusions were required in either group, but there was one case of conversion to open surgery in the right LLDN group. Conclusion Our data confirm the safety and efficacy of the right LLDN, consistent with the current literature. This increases the cumulative evidence supporting the use of laparoscopic retrieval on the right side when indicated.

Renal implications of pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic surgery: mechanisms, risk factors, and preventive strategies.

Pneumoperitoneum, which is established for laparoscopic surgery, has systemic implications on the renal system and may contribute to acute kidney injury or postoperative renal dysfunction. Specifically, when the pressure exceeds 10 mmHg, pneumoperitoneum decreases renal blood flow, leading to renal dysfunction and temporary oliguria. The renal effects of pneumoperitoneum stem from both the direct effects of increased intra-abdominal pressure and indirect factors such as carbon dioxide absorption, neuroendocrine influences, and tissue damage resulting from oxidative stress. While pneumoperitoneum can exacerbate renal dysfunction in patients with pre-existing kidney issues, preserving the function of the remaining kidney is crucial in certain procedures such as laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. However, available evidence on the effects of pneumoperitoneum on renal function is limited and of moderate quality. This review focuses on exploring the pathophysiological hypotheses underlying kidney damage, mechanisms leading to oliguria and kidney damage, and fluid management strategies for surgical patients during pneumoperitoneum.

Retroperitoneal hernia following laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy: a case report and review of literature

BackgroundThe laparoscopic approach is the standard of care for living-donor nephrectomy. A rare postoperative complication is small bowel obstruction due to a retroperitoneal hernia. We present a case of an incidental finding of a retroperitoneal hernia in a patient with a history of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.Case presentationAn adult male presented with diffuse abdominal pain, vomiting, and obstipation for 12 h. He had undergone laparoscopic donor nephrectomy two months prior. Plain abdominal radiograph revealed a dilated small bowel with homogenous opacity in the left lumbar region. Due to worsening diffuse abdominal pain and a high clinical suspicion of intestinal strangulation and ischemia after conservative management, an exploratory laparotomy was performed. Intraoperatively, an incarcerated small bowel segment herniating through an 8 cm descending mesocolon defect into the retroperitoneal space was discovered, forming a closed-loop obstruction. The bowel segment was reduced, and the mesocolon defect was repaired. The patient was discharged five days postoperatively with good recovery.ConclusionRetroperitoneal hernia following laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy is a rare but significant complication. Mitigation to prevent mesenteric defect creation, routine inspection, and closure of the defect can reduce the risk of hernia. Non-specific abdominal pain in patients with a history of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy prompts rapid imaging evaluation to aid in the early diagnosis of possible retroperitoneal hernia and its intervention.

Effectiveness of Postoperative Single-shot and Continuous Transverse Abdominis Plane Block Compared to Conventional Analgesia in Hand-assisted Laparoscopic Live-donor Nephrectomy.

Few studies have evaluated the efficacy of transverse abdominis plane (TAP) block in patients undergoing hand-assisted laparoscopic live-donor nephrectomy (HALN). We aimed to evaluate the analgesic effectiveness of TAP block as part of a multimodal pain management regimen in patients undergoing HALN. We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of living kidney donors at our center between June 2016 and February 2020. HALNs were performed via a transperitoneal approach through a suprapubic incision. Additional laparoscopic ports were used in the upper midabdomen. In consenting donors, TAP block was performed postoperatively under ultrasound guidance with either a single-shot or continuous infusion of long-acting local anesthetic (0.2%-0.5% ropivacaine). All the patients received postoperative around-the-clock ketorolac and acetaminophen. Overall, 72 donors received the block (block group, 38 single-shot, 34 continuous), whereas 86 donors did not receive the block (control group). Baseline characteristics were comparable between the groups except for body weight (control: 71.8 ± 13.3 versus block: 77.8 ± 17.3 kg; P = 0.01) and intraoperative opioid dose (32.1 ± 9.6 versus 26.6 ± 10.7 morphine milligram equivalents; P < 0.001). After adjusting for baseline differences, postoperative opioid requirements were similar between the groups. When the baseline pain scale was adjusted for, there was no difference in the overall pain scale scores between the groups (P = 0.242). Subgroup analyses comparing single-shot or continuous TAP versus control did not show any differences. With the caveat of the retrospective nature of the study, the adjunctive effect of TAP block after transabdominal HALN was limited when other multimodal analgesia was used.

Trends in kidney transplantation and living donor nephrectomy in Germany: a total population analysis from 2006 to 2021.

To analyze recent trends of surgical access routes, length of hospital stay (LOS), and mortality in kidney transplantation (KT) and living donor nephrectomy (LDN) in Germany. We studied the nationwide German hospital billing database and the German hospital quality reports from 2006 to 2021. There were a total of 35.898 KTs. In total, 9044 (25%) were living donor transplantations, while 26.854 (75%) were transplantations after donation after brain death (DBD). The share of open LDN decreased from 82% in 2006 to 22% in 2020 (-4%/year; p < 0.001). The share of laparoscopic LDN increased from 18% in 2006 to 70% in 2020 (+ 3%/year; p < 0.001). The share of robotic LDN increased from 0% in 2006 to 8% in 2020 (+ 0.6%/year; p < 0.001). Robotic-assisted KT increased from 5 cases in 2016 to 13 procedures in 2019 (p = 0.2). LOS was shorter after living donor KT, i.e., 18 ± 12.1days versus 21 ± 19.6days for DBD renal transplantation (p < 0.001). Moreover, LOS differed for open versus laparoscopic versus robotic LDN (9 ± 3.1 vs. 8 ± 2.9 vs. 6 ± 2.6; p = 0.031). The overall in-hospital mortality was 0.16% (n = 5) after LDN, 0.47% (n = 42) after living donor KT and 1.8% (n = 475) after DBD KT. There is an increasing trend toward minimal-invasive LDN in recent years. Overall, in-hospital mortality was low after KT. However, 5 deceased healthy donors after LKD caution that the risks of this procedure should also be taken very seriously.

Our Experience of Laparoscopic Living Donor Nephrectomy

Background Donor nephrectomy for living donor kidney transplantation using minimally invasive techniques is a safe procedure that has been used for more than 20 years with excellent results. The total minimally invasive approach offers decreased postoperative pain, better cosmesis, a lower chance of incisional hernia, and a faster recovery time. Methods We present the results of a series of 120 laparoscopic donor nephrectomies performed at our center. The procedures were performed with transperitoneal access using the standard five ports. The main renal artery and vein were ligated using a hemo-o-lock clip. The specimen was extracted through the additional inguinal incision. Results All procedures were performed laparoscopically without conversion to open surgery. The average warm ischemia time was 4.0 min. In all recipients, immediate kidney allograft function was seen. Conclusion Total laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy is a safe procedure that gives the highest benefit to the donor. It was performed successfully in all cases, with a short operative time and no morbidity or mortality.

A bidirectional cohort study to compare the outcomes of transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches in subjects undergoing laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy

Abstract Background Laparoscopic transperitoneal donor nephrectomy (LDN) is currently the standard procedure for renal donation from living donors. Only a handful of clinical studies have compared the outcomes of retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy (RLDN) and LDN. More robust data and systematic comparative analyses of the outcomes and complications of these 2 techniques are needed. This study aimed to elucidate the noninferiority of RLDN to LDN. Materials and methods All live renal donors who underwent either RLDN or LDN at our institution during the period of January 2015 to March 2021 were considered subjects, excluding those who refused to participate in the study. This was a bidirectional cohort study. Demographic and clinical data were collected and analyzed using standard statistical methods. Statistical significance was set at p &lt; 0.05. Results Our study included 89 subjects: 40 in the LDN group and 49 in the RLDN group. The RLDN group had significantly shorter warm ischemia time (2.85 vs. 6.04 minutes), a lower fall in hemoglobin on postoperative day (POD)-1 (1.73 vs. 2.24 g/dL), lower estimated blood loss (601.93 vs. 797.27 mL), and lower pain on POD-1 (0.78 vs. 1.28). The improvement in recipient’s estimated glomerular filtration rate on POD-30 was significantly higher in the RLDN group (79.98 vs. 63.73 mL/min/1.73 m2). There was a significantly higher fall in estimated glomerular filtration rate of donor after nephrectomy in RLDN group on POD-30 (35.53 vs. 30.60 mL/min/1.73 m2). However, there were no significant differences in other parameters. Conclusions Our study, conducted in India, showed that the majority of RLDN outcomes were better than those of LDN. Hence, RLDN is clearly non-inferior to the gold standard LDN. A well-designed randomized controlled study is required to elucidate the statistical superiority of one approach over another.

Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy: superior outcomes after completion of the learning curve

The use of robots in donor nephrectomy has increased in recent years. However, whether robot-assisted methods have better outcomes than traditional laparoscopic methods and how surgical experience influences these outcomes remains unclear. This meta-analysis compares the outcomes of robot-assisted donor nephrectomy (RADN) with those of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) and to investigate the effects of surgical experience on these outcomes. A systematic literature search was conducted in Medline (through PubMed) and Web of Science databases. Perioperative data were extracted for meta-analysis. To assess the impact of the learning curve, a subgroup analysis was performed to compare outcomes between inexperienced and experienced surgeons. Seventeen studies with 6970 donors were included. Blood loss was lower (mean difference [MD] = – 13.28, p < 0.01) and the warm ischemia time was shorter (MD = – 0.13, p < 0.05) in the LDN group than the RADN group. There were no significant differences in terms of conversion to open surgery, operation time, surgical complications, hospital stay, costs, and delayed graft function between the groups. Subgroup analysis revealed that operation time (MD = – 1.09, p < 0.01) and length of hospital stay (MD = – 1.54, p < 0.05) were shorter and the rate of conversion to open surgery (odds ratios [OR] = 0.14, p < 0.0001) and overall surgical complications (OR = 0.23, p < 0.05) were lower in experienced RADN surgeons than in experienced LDN surgeons. Surgical experience enhances the perioperative outcomes following RADN more than it does following LDN. This suggests that RADN could be the method of choice for living donor nephrectomy as soon as surgeons gain sufficient experience in robotic surgery.

Laparoscopic Living Donor Nephrectomy in a Donor With Situs Inversus Totalis: It is Not a Contraindication to Kidney Transplant

Situs inversus totalis (SIT) is a rare anatomic anomaly representing 180° inversion of all internal organs. We report a case of laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy in a donor with SIT. A 55-year-old man volunteered to provide a living kidney source for his son. The donor was in good physical condition, with no clinical history of obesity, hypertension, diabetes, and other abnormalities. Preoperative X-ray thoracic and abdominal scans showed that the donor had a total organ transposition inversus. Computed tomographic renal vascular three-dimensional reconstruction scan showed that the patient had 2 left renal arteries and 1 right renal artery. All data collected comply with the Helsinki Congress and the Declaration of Istanbul. We chose to perform a transabdominal route laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy of the right kidney. The donor did not experience operation-related complications and was discharged on the fourth postoperative day. The recipient did not have a rejection reaction, and the recipient recovered successfully. This case illustrates that laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy is fully feasible in this population.

Renal Artery Thrombosis After Laparoscopic Living-Donor Nephrectomy: A Case Report

Renal transplantation is the most successful treatment for end-stage renal disease, and the number of living-donor nephrectomies has been rising over the years due to the advantages it offers over deceased donors. Although this surgery is considered safe, it can be associated with complications amplified by the fact that it is performed on a healthy individual. Renal artery thrombosis is a rare disease that needs prompt diagnosis and treatment to avoid renal function deterioration, which becomes even more important in cases of solitary kidneys. We report the first case of renal artery thrombosis after laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy treated with catheter-directed thrombolysis.

Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy in the Republic of North Macedonia.

Introduction: Hand-assisted laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy has become the technique of choice for living donor kidney donations. Since 2018, 30 procedures have been performed at our clinic using this technique. The goal of this comparative analysis was to determine how surgical technique, specifically, hand-assisted laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy with hand assistance may affect early graft function when compared to open classical nephrectomy. Material and methods: Retrospective analyses were performed, comparing the two techniques of kidney donation. Kidney transplantation was performed with the open standard technique in both groups. The primary outcome was early graft function, and levels of urine output, and plasma creatinine were analyzed at three time points. A secondary outcome was the quality of the operative technique, which was determined by the time of warm ischemia, blood loss, and duration of surgery. Additionally, we noted all complications, length of hospital stay, and patient satisfaction. Results: In terms of warm ischemia time, there was no statistically significant difference between donors in both groups. It is important to note that in 2 recipients from Group II we did not observe diuresis at the conclusion of the operation. The recipients' diuresis was 515 ml ± 321SD in group I and 444 ml ± 271SD in group II. At 3, 12, and 36 hours postoperatively, there were statistically significant differences in the average serum creatinine values (p 0.05) in favor of group I. Similar results were observed in the second time measurement at 12 h and the third time measurement at 36 h for serum urea levels in recipients. The difference in serum urea values between the recipients in the groups at the first measurement (3h) following surgery was not statistically significant. Conclusion: Hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is recognized as a safe and effective treatment. Donors in this situation have a different profile from other surgical patients; hence, they do not undergo surgery due to their own medical condition but for an altruistic reason, and with hand-assisted living donor nephrectomy. Such patients receive all the advantages of minimally invasive surgery. The two main objectives of a donor nephrectomy are to give the recipient the best possible kidney and to ensure the donor's complete safety.

The Effect of the MAYO Adhesive Probability Score on Intraoperative Parameters in Laparoscopic Live Donor Nephrectomy and Bench Surgery

The Effect of the MAYO Adhesive Probability Score on Intraoperative Parameters in Laparoscopic Live Donor Nephrectomy and Bench Surgery

Transition from transperitoneal to retroperitoneal approach in laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy: team-based and individual learning curve: a cross-sectional study

Background: Laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy (LLDN) is a standard practice for kidney donor transplantation due to fewer complications associated with the treatment. Retroperitoneal approach to LLDN is thought to be more advantageous in preventing injuries to various abdominal organs. However, the transition process from transperitoneal to retroperitoneal LLDN is important to ensure the best outcome for the patients. The aim of this study was to investigate the learning curve for retroperitoneal approach in LLDN among urologists in an individual and team-based approach Methods: A retrospective analysis of retroperitoneal LLDN was performed on procedures performed by a kidney donor team consisting of four urologists from January 2019 to January 2022 at Cipto Mangunkusumo National General Hospital, Indonesia. The data were taken from pre-existing medical records. The learning curve for the operation time, warm ischemic time, and estimated blood loss was analyzed using cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis. Phase 1 represents the initial learning curve, the phase 2 plateau represents the period of proficiency, while phase 3 represents the mastery period. Results: A total of 127 retroperitoneal LLDN procedures were done during the study period by four operators with various experience. The average procedure needed to achieve proficiency was 16.5 procedures. Meanwhile, the average procedure needed to achieve mastery was 28 procedures. Shorter learning curve was achieved by operators with more experience in other laparoscopic procedures. Conclusions: The learning curve for transition from transperitoneal to retroperitoneal approach to LLDN is relatively short and feasible for both individuals and teams of urologists. Therefore, transition to retroperitoneal approach is a feasible option to reduce the complication rate of LLDN.

How Long Does It Take to Acquire Mastery of Performance in Laparoscopic Living Donor Nephrectomy? A Center-Based and Surgeon-Based Operative Time CUSUM Analysis

The safety of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) has been widely documented, but its challenging learning curve (LC) requires an insightful assessment to expand its application. The aim of this study was to evaluate LC of LDN in a high-volume transplant center. Three hundred forty-three LDNs performed from 2001 to 2018 were evaluated. CUSUM analysis based on the operative time was used to assess the number of cases required to reach mastery in the technique for both the entire surgical team and for the 3 main surgeons considered separately. Analysis of association between demographics, perioperative characteristics, and complications within the different LC phases was conducted. Mean operative time was 228.9 minutes. Mean length of stay was 3.8 days and mean warm ischemia time (WIT) was 170.8 seconds. Surgical and medical complication rates were 7.3% and 6.4%, respectively. The CUSUM-LC showed a requirement of 157 cases (for surgical team) and 75 cases (for single surgeons) to reach competence in the procedure. Patient baseline characteristic showed no differences among the LC phases. Compared with the initial LC phase, hospital stay was significantly lower at the end of the LC whereas WIT results were longer in the LC descendent phase. This study confirms the safety and efficacy of LDN, with a low rate of complications. This analysis suggests that about 75 procedures are required to reach competence and 93 cases to achieve mastery level of skill for a single surgeon. It can be hypothesized that, in a high-volume transplant enter, the time to guarantee training in LDN is compatible with the duration of a clinical fellowship.

The Effect of Preoperative Carbohydrate Intake on Length of Stay and Postoperative Recovery Following Laparoscopic Living Donor Nephrectomy

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols are applied in many surgical procedures and often involve preoperative carbohydrate intake. Research surrounding the utility of ERAS in living donor nephrectomy is limited. The objective of this study was to identify whether living kidney donors who received preoperative oral carbohydrates experienced a difference in length of hospital stay (LOS), duration of time required to resume regular oral food and fluid intake, and incidence of gastrointestinal (GI) complications following laparoscopic nephrectomy compared to historical control donors who underwent preoperative fasting. This study was a retrospective analysis of data from adult subjects at one transplant center who underwent laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy. A total of 55 ERAS subjects who received preoperative carbohydrates and 93 historical control subjects who underwent preoperative fasting were included in the final analysis. The following variables were compared between groups: LOS, time to tolerating a regular oral diet postoperatively, time to meeting 50% of estimated fluid needs by oral intake postoperatively, and incidence of postoperative GI complications. No significant differences between the ERAS and historical control groups in age, weight, body mass index (BMI), sex distribution, or estimated fluid needs were identified. Both groups consisted of predominantly female subjects. ERAS subjects experienced a shorter LOS (2.8 days versus 3.9 days, P < .001), time to tolerating a regular oral diet (36.5 hours versus 68.2 hours, P < .001), and time to meeting 50% of estimated fluid needs (25.3 hours versus 44.6 hours, P < .001) after laparoscopic nephrectomy compared to historical control subjects. No significant difference between groups in the incidence of postoperative GI complications (nausea, vomiting, or ileus) was identified. Our findings demonstrate the advantages of ERAS in living kidney donors undergoing laparoscopic nephrectomy and support ERAS implementation within this patient population.

Current practice of live donor nephrectomy in Turkey.

Over the last few years, the deceased donor organ donation rate was declined or remained stable, whereas the live donor organ donation rate has increased to compensate for the demand. Minimally invasive techniques for live donor nephrectomy (LDN) have also improved the live donor kidney donation rates. This increase has led to an interest in the surgical procedures used for LDN. To evaluate the LDN techniques performed in Turkey, the structure of surgical teams, and the training received. Additionally, the number of kidney transplantations at different centers, the surgeon experience level, differences in surgical approach during donor surgeries, and outcomes were assessed. A questionnaire was sent to the Turkish Ministry of Health-accredited transplant centers. It inquired of the number of LDN surgeries, surgical techniques, complications, optimization protocols, the experience of surgeons, and the training. Descriptive statistics were outlined as follows: Discrete numeric variables were expressed as medians (minimum-maximum), while categorical variables were shown as numbers and percentages. As a result of the goodness-of-fit tests, if the significance of the differences between the groups in discrete numerical variables for which the parametric test statistical assumptions were not met, data were analyzed with the Mann Whitney U test and the χ 2 test. The questionnaire was sent to 72 transplant centers, all of which replied. Five centers that reported not performing LDN procedures were excluded. Responses from the remaining 67 centers were analyzed. In 2019, the median number of kidney transplants performed was 45, and the median number of kidney transplants from living donors was 28 (1-238). Eleven (16.5%) centers performed 5-10, while 34 (50.7%) centers performed more than 100 live donor kidney transplants in 2019. While 19 (28.4%) centers performed the LDN procedures using the open technique, 48 (71.6%) centers implemented minimally invasive techniques. Among the centers preferring minimally invasive techniques for LDN, eight (16.6%) used more than one surgical technique. The most and the least common surgical techniques were transperitoneal laparoscopic (43 centers, 89.6%) and single port laparoscopic LDN (1 center, 2.1%) techniques, respectively. A positive association was found between the performance of minimally invasive techniques and the case volume of a transplant center, both in the total number and live donor kidney transplants (15 vs 55, P = 0.001 and 9 vs 42, P ≤ 0001 respectively). The most frequently reported complication was postoperative atelectasis (n = 33, 49.2%). There was no difference between the techniques concerning complications except for the chyle leak. Turkish transplant centers performed LDN surgeries successfully through various techniques. Centers implementing minimally invasive techniques had a relatively higher number of live donor kidney transplants in 2019.

Pure Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy: A Single Institution Experience From a Middle Eastern Country

Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (LLDN) is the most adopted technique for kidney transplantation. Several obstacles preclude brain-dead organ transplantation in the Middle East, going from social and cultural barriers to economical and structural difficulties. To our knowledge, this is the first study to report Lebanese experience with pure LLDN, and kidney transplantation. We included 120 cases of pure LLDN performed at our center. Demographic, perioperative, and immediate postoperative data were analyzed. Surgical particularities of the technique are described. The reported laparoscopic technique allowed for minimal perioperative morbidity, with an overall complication rate of 3%. Operative time averaged 146 minutes and warm ischemia time averaged 4 minutes. Mean hospital stay was 3 ± 1 days. Postoperative hemoglobin and creatinine showed a mean absolute variation of 0.09 ± 0.06 g/dL for hemoglobin and 0.51 ± 015 μmoles/L increase for creatinine. No Clavien-Dindo III-V complications were recorded. Strict adherence to the reproducible pure LLDN technique allowed for the performance of almost 45 cases per year with minimal morbidity and results comparable to similar series.

Laparoscopic Living Donor Nephrectomy—Single-Center Initial Experience

(1) Background: Donor nephrectomy for living donor kidney transplantation using minimally invasive techniques is a safe procedure that has been used for more than 20 years with excellent results. The total laparoscopic approach offers decreased postoperative pain, less incisional morbidity, and a shorter recovery time. (2) Methods: We present the results of a series of 43 laparoscopic donor nephrectomies performed in a single center. The procedures were performed in a systematic approach with transperitoneal access using four ports. The main renal artery and vein were ligated using a linear stapler fixed with an alternate triple row of titanium staples. The specimen was extracted in an endoscopic bag through an additional incision. (3) Results: All procedures were performed laparoscopically without conversion to open surgery. The average warm ischemia time was 4.73 min. In all recipients, immediate kidney allograft function was observed. (4) Conclusions: Total laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy is a safe procedure. It was performed successfully in all cases with a short surgical time, low morbidity, and 0% mortality.

Complications After Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Living Donor Nephrectomy

ObjectiveTo study the complications of hand-assisted laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy (HALLDN) with an emphasis on complications occurring early after hospital discharge up to 120 days after surgery. Patients and MethodsWe retrospectively categorized complications using the Clavien-Dindo classification in 3002 HALLDNs performed at 1 center from January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2019. In addition to overall summaries, modeling was used to identify correlates of complications before and after living donation. ResultsOf these donors, 87% were White, 59% were female, the mean age was 45 years (range, 18-77 years), 30.3% had a body mass index of at least 30, and 36.3% had previous abdominopelvic surgery. There were no deaths related to the surgery. The incidence of major complications (intraoperative complications plus Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III postoperatively) was 2.5% (n=74). The overall complication rate was 12.4% (n=371), including 15 intraoperative, 76 postoperative before discharge, and 280 after discharge to 120 days. Reoperation was required in 1.8% of patients (n=54), and all but 1 of these were incision-related problems. Seventy-six percent of all complications occurred after discharge, including 85% of the reoperations. For major complications, no risk factor was found. Risk factors for any complication included paramedian incision (hazard ratio [HR], 2.54; 95% CI, 1.49 to 4.34; P<.001); a history of abdominopelvic surgery (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.76; P=.01), male sex (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.76; P=.01), non-White race (HR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.88; P=.02), and early era of the experience. ConclusionMost major complications of HALLDN occur after discharge, suggesting that close follow-up is warranted and that the current literature may underestimate the true incidence.