Laparoscopic Live Donor Nephrectomy Research Articles

Safe transition from open to pure laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: Approach and results.

Introduction:Laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy (LLDN) offers many advantages compared to open living donor nephrectomy. However, the perceived difficulty in learning LLDN has slowed its wider implementation. Herein, we describe the evolution of LLDN at a single center, emphasizing the approach and technical modifications and its impact on outcome.Methods:The series included a 2½-year period and three different surgeons. We started with two-stage plan for establishing LLDN at the institute (introduction and consolidation). Data of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy performed at the institution were prospectively evaluated regarding donor and recipient outcome.Results:From December 2016 to April 2019, 221 donors underwent LLDN. Three donors required conversion to open surgery. The mean operation time was 96.4 (62–158) min and the mean warm ischemia time was 186 (149–423) s. The complications were observed in 11.6% of donors from LLDN group and all complications were Class I and Class II only (Clavien–Dindo classification). No Class III and Class IV complications occurred. In the present study, there was some learning curve effect observed only in operative time (OT) with longer OT in initial cases. However, the overall operative complications were minimal, showing that this learning curve had no deleterious effects on donor safety.Conclusion:The present study demonstrates that with proper planning, team approach, and a few technical modifications, the transition from open to LLDN could be safe and effective.

Midline Rotation of the Right Renal Hilum During Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Living Donor Nephrectomy.

Background/Objectives:Laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy (LLDN) of the right kidney is currently considered as part of standard of care; however, dealing with the renal hilum when performing ligation/division of its renal vessels is still a main concern. Here, we describe a simple-to-perform technique, i.e., flipping the fully mobilized right kidney to the midline so that the renal artery becomes anteriorly, which offers better visualization and easier dissection of the renal vessels (achieving maximized lengths) when performing hand-assisted LLDN of the right kidney.Methods:Living donors who underwent hand-assisted LLDN of the right kidney, along with their respective renal transplant recipients, were included in this report. Donor characteristics included renal artery and vein lengths; recipient characteristics included creatinine at months 12 – 36. Graft vein and arterial anastomosis data were also reported.Results:Nineteen living donors and 19 recipients, with median donor and recipient ages being 39 (24 – 60) and 53 (3 – 81) years, respectively, were included. None of the 38 patients had intra- or postoperative complications. Donor renal vein was anastomosed to the right external iliac vein (n = 16), right common iliac vein (n = 2), and inferior vena cava (n = 1). Gonadal vein (n = 1) and deceased donor iliac vein (n = 2) were used to increase the right renal vein length in 3 cases. Four donor kidneys had 2 arteries reconstructed side by side. None of the recipients developed any vascular or urological complications.Conclusions:The laparoscopic technique described is safe and allows better visualization of the right hilum, mainly the renal artery, and helps in stapling the renal vein and renal artery.

Management of Chylous Ascites After Laparoscopic Nephrectomy for Living Kidney Donor: A Case Report and Literature Review

Kidney transplant is currently the elective treatment of choice for end-stage renal disease. Laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy (LLDN) has substantial advantages over open nephrectomy. Chylous ascites (CA) is a rare surgical complication after the LLDN; there are few reports in the literature.We present a case report of a 58-year-old woman who started CA on the 21st day post operation. The recommended initial therapeutic approach to suspend the fat in the diet and place percutaneous drainage was not enough. It was decided to jointly introduce fasting and total parenteral nutrition with the administration of octreotide, resolving the complication completely in 15 days with no need for the patient to undergo surgery.The conservative management, during the first 4 to 8 weeks after the diagnosis is the best option. Surgery is generally recommended if conservative management fails.The prevalence of CA varied between 0% and 6.2% of LLDNs. In our experience of 87 LLDNs, we only presented 1.15% for this complication. There are 62 cases reported in the international literature. The mean presentation was 14 days after LLDN. All patients underwent conservative treatment, and only 15 patients (24%) went to surgery after the failure of conservative management.It would be highly useful, considering the disparity of the prevalence, if the bibliographic reports detail what hemostatic and sealing techniques are used in an LLDN. In this way it would be possible to identify which factor affects a complication like this one.

Living-donor nephrectomy at Singapore General Hospital: Evolution of surgical techniques over the last two decades

Background:Laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy is the current epitome of living kidney donation surgery. We review our experience in living-donor nephrectomies over the last 19 years, transitioning from open surgery to hand-assisted laparoscopy to full laparoscopic techniques.Methods:We retrospectively identified all living-donor nephrectomies performed at our institution from 1976 to 2018. The donors were categorised according to surgical techniques: open (ODN), hand-assisted laparoscopy (HALDN) and full laparoscopy (LDN). We reviewed changes in donor demographics over the years. Surgical outcomes between groups were compared from 2000 to 2018. We also compared the outcomes of LDN between different time periods to evaluate our learning curve.Results:A total of 214 living-donor nephrectomies were performed between 2000 and 2018. The majority were left sided (93%) and had single renal artery anatomy (90%). There were 22 ODN, 20 HALDN and 163 LDN cases. The mean operating time was 84±43, 151±32 and 179±37 minutes for ODN, HALDN and LDN, respectively ( p<0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in mean warm ischaemia times ( p=0.921) and length of hospital stay ( p=0.114) between groups. The overall 30-day surgical morbidity rate was 9.3%, with a major complications rate of 0.9%. The mean warm ischaemia time for LDN was significantly different ( p<0.001) between time periods: 281±260, 184±94 and 140±42 seconds for the periods between 2005–2009, 2010–2014 and 2015–2018, respectively.Conclusion:This study confirms the safety of living-donor nephrectomies performed at our institution, a centre with a modest volume of kidney transplants.

Living Donor Nephrectomy Using a Right Malrotated Kidney: A Case Report

A 46-year-old woman was approved as a living kidney donor in our center for paired donation working with the National Kidney Registry. The imaging revealed a malrotated right kidney with the hilum oriented cephalad. We selected that kidney for donation, and an uneventful laparoscopic donor nephrectomy was performed. To our knowledge, this is the first case of laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy using a sagittally malrotated kidney.

Laparoscopic Live Donor Nephrectomy: Experience of High-Volume Center with 2,477 Cases

Objective: Donors’ health and safety are mandatory in the living-donor kidney transplantation procedure. Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (LLDN) provides an increase in donor numbers with its benefits and becomes a standard of care. We aimed to explain the results, complication rates, tips, and tricks of the largest number of LLDN case series ever performed in the literature. Materials and Methods: Between August 2012 and December 2019, 2,477 live donor case files were analyzed retrospectively. Age, gender, hospitalization times, body mass index, warm ischemia times, operation times, numbers of arteries, side of the kidneys, and complications were noted. Results: 1,421 (57.4%) of 2,477 donors were female (p = 0.007). Operation times and warm ischemia times were found longer in right-sided LLDN and donors with multiple renal arteries (p = 0.046, <0.001, and <0.001, respectively). Obesity (BMI >30 kg/m²) did not affect warm ischemia times while prolonging the operation times (p = 0.013). Hospitalization times and numbers of complications were higher in obese donors. Conclusions: LLDN seems to be a reliable solution with fewer complications and higher satisfaction rates. We hope to illuminate the way with tips and trick points for beginner transplant surgeons based on the experience obtained from 2,477 LLDN cases.

Effect of rectus sheath block vs. spinal anaesthesia on time-to-readiness for hospital discharge after trans-peritoneal hand-assisted laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: A randomised trial.

The role of spinal anaesthesia in patients having a transperitoneal hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in an enhanced recovery setting has never been investigated. We explored whether substituting a rectus sheath block (RSB) with spinal anaesthesia, as an adjunct to a general anaesthetic technique, influenced time-to-readiness for discharge in patients undergoing hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Prospective randomised open blinded end-point (PROBE) study with two parallel groups. Tertiary University Hospital. Ninety-seven patients undergoing a trans-peritoneal hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Patients (n=52) were randomly assigned to receive a general anaesthetic and a surgical RSB with 2 mg kg-1 of levobupivacaine at the time of surgical closure or a spinal anaesthetic with hyperbaric bupivacaine 12.5 mg and diamorphine 0.5 mg (n=45) before general anaesthesia. The primary outcome was the time-to-readiness for discharge following surgery. Median [IQR] times-to-readiness for discharge were 75 [56 to 83] and 79 [67 to 101] h for RSB and spinal anaesthesia and there was no significant difference in times-to-readiness for discharge (median difference 4 (95% CI, 0 to 20h; P = 0.07)). There were no significant differences in pain scores at rest (P = 0.91) or on movement (P = 0.66). Median 24-h oxycodone consumptions were similar (P = 0.80). Nausea and vomiting scores were similar (P = 0.57) and urinary retention occurred in one vs. four patients with RSB and spinal anaesthesia, respectively (P = 0.077). Substitution of RSB with spinal anaesthesia using 12.5 mg hyperbaric bupivacaine and 0.5 mg diamorphine, together with a general anaesthetic failed to confer any benefit on time-to-discharge readiness following transperitoneal hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. RSB provided similar analgesia in the immediate postoperative period with a low frequency of side-effects in this cohort. ClinicalTrial.gov identifier: NCT02700217.

ROBOTIC VERSUS LAPAROSCOPIC LIVING DONOR NEPHRECTOMY: A PROSPECTIVE STUDY

Introduction: Robotic-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (RALDN) reportedly facilitate better hilar dissection but had associated concerns regarding longer graft retrieval and ischemia times. The aim of this study is to assess safety and efficacy of an initially introduced RALDN when compared to the routine retroperitoneal laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy (RLLDN) at a single institution transplant program. Materials and Methods: Data were collected prospectively from 64 consecutive living kidney donors (12 for RALDN subgroup and 52 RLLDN subgroup) at our hospital from May 2018 to August 2019. All donors were approved by our Government Hospital Renal Transplantation Council according to Amsterdam Guidelines. Patient demographics, radiology findings, surgery results and complications were recorded. Primary endpoints were peri-operative parameters, postoperative outcomes and complications. The surgeons were experienced retroperitoneoscopic using three ports and robotic surgeons using the Da Vinci Si System with three arm robotic ports. Results: For the entire group, mean age ± SD was 51.7 ± 8.9 years, and 58% were females. Mean BMI was 22.5 ± 2.3 (15.6 - 27.3). There were 54 (84%) left kidneys. Preoperatively, there were no significant differences between the two patient groups including age, gender, BMI, kidney side, hilar anatomy and ASA status. For perioperative outcomes, there was no significant differences (P>0.05) comparing RALDN and RLLDN respectively for warm ischemic time (4.75 ± 1.54vs. 4.75 ± 1.38 minutes), operative time (233 ± 46 vs. 216 ± 41 minutes), hemoglobin (g/L) drop (9 ± 5.6 vs. 8.6 ± 7.2), postoperative complications (All Clavien) (16.7% vs. 9.6%), the donor blood creatinine at one month (1.1 ± 0.2 vs. 1.2 ± 0.3 mg/dL), and the recipient blood creatinine at one month (1.2 ± 0.3 vs. 1.4 ± 0.4 mg/dL). There were no open conversions or delayed graft functions in both groups. Conclusion: This study showed that RALDN can be safely introduced into living donor program experienced in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. This allows the program to utilize the operative advantages including better optics and instrument dexterity of the platform in all or selected cases.

A novel difficulty grading system for laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy

BackgroundSeveral difficulty grading systems have been developed as a useful tool for selecting patients and training surgeons in laparoscopic procedures. However, there is little information on predicting the difficulty of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN). The aim of this study was to develop a grading system to predict the difficulty of LDN.MethodsData of 1741 living donors, who underwent pure or hand-assisted LDN between 1994 and 2018 were analyzed. Multivariable analyses were performed to identify factors associated with prolonged operative time, defined as a difficulty index with 0 to 8. The difficulty of LDN was classified into three levels based on the difficulty index.ResultsMultivariable analyses identified that male (odds ratio [OR] 1.69, 95% CI 1.37–2.09, P < 0.001), BMI > 28 (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.08–1.72, P = 0.009), pure LDN (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.53–2.60, P < 0.001), multiple renal arteries (OR 2.38, 95% CI 1.83–3.10, P < 0.001) and multiple renal veins (OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.52–3.16, P < 0.001) were independent risk factors influencing prolonged operative time. The difficulty index based on these factors was calculated and categorized into three levels: low (0–2), intermediate (3–5), and high (6–8) difficulty. Operative time was significantly longer in the high difficulty group (225 min) than in the low (169 min, P < 0.001) and intermediate difficulty group (194 min, P < 0.001). The conversion rate was higher in the high difficulty group (4.4%) than in the low (2.1%, P = 0.04) and the intermediate difficulty group (3.0%, P = 0.27). No significant difference in major complications was found between the groups.ConclusionWe developed a novel grading system with simple preoperative donor factors to predict the difficulty of LDN. This grading system may help surgeons in patient selection to advance their experiences and/or teach fellows from simple to difficult LDN.

Is a Retroaortic Vein a Risk Factor in Laparoscopic Living Donor Nephrectomy?

Introduction: In living donor transplantation choosing the right donor and donor side for laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is a challenging task in clinical practice. Knowledge about anomalies in renal blood supply are crucial to evaluate the feasibility of the operative procedure. Few data so far exist whether the existence of a retroaortic left renal vein has an impact on living kidney transplantation outcome for donor and recipient. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 221 patients who underwent laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy between 2011 and 2017 for existence of a retroaortic left renal vein. Clinical characteristics and operative outcomes for donors and recipients were analyzed. Results: 221 patients underwent donor nephrectomy between 2011 and 2017; 11 patients (4.98%) showed the feature of a retroaortic left renal vein, and in 8 patients (72.7%) out of those 11 the left kidney was chosen for transplantation. Mean preoperative serum creatinine was 0.77 (0.49–0.98) mg/dL and 1.28 (0.97–1.64) mg/dL at discharge. In recipients mean serum creatinine preoperatively, after 1 week, 1 month,1 year, 2 and 3 years of follow-up was 10.36 (6.09–20.77) mg/dL, 1.71 (0.67–2.72), 1.33 (0.70–1.89), 1.31 (0.95–2.13), 1.31 (0.98–2.13) and 1.33 (1.03–1.84), respectively. Neither donors nor recipients suffered from any operative complications. Conclusions: Laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy of a left kidney with retroaortic renal vein is safe for the donor, without limitation in the outcome for the recipient.

Safety and Efficacy of Right Retroperitoneal Laparoscopic Live Donor Nephrectomy: A Retrospective Single-Center Study.

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of right retroperitoneal laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (LDN) in 81 cases of living-related renal transplant.Material/MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed all living-related donors who underwent right retroperitoneoscopic living donor nephrectomy between June 2010 and December 2017 at the First Hospital of Jilin University and their corresponding recipients. Demographic and clinical data were collected from the hospital’s electronic clinical data system. Data on preoperative renal retention parameters, operative time, and donor kidney warm ischemia time, the trimmed length of the renal artery and vein of donor kidney, and the time to extubation were recorded. Complications in both donors and recipients were recorded.ResultsWe included 81 donors who underwent successful right-sided retroperitoneoscopic LDN, with 31 males and 50 females and a mean age of 47.1 years (range 21–63 years). There was no intraoperative conversion to open donor nephrectomy. The mean operative time was 120.68±29.8 min. The mean warm ischemic time was 49.26±3.86 s. The estimate blood loss was 54.32 mL (range 50–400 mL). The median length of hospital stay was 7 days (range 4–13 days). There was neither intraoperative complication such as hemorrhage or lymph fistula nor kidney graft injury. There was no graft renal vein thrombosis and ureteral stricture or other complications. No graft rejection occurred.ConclusionsRight retroperitoneal laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy is safe and effective for renal transplant in living-related renal transplant by laparoscopic excision and extraction of the right kidney with vena cava flap.

Persistent orchialgia after laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy: an underestimated complication requiring information adjustment.

Laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy (LLDN) is the gold-standard procedure for kidney procurement. Ipsilateral orchialgia has barely been described. Some authors reported that ligation of gonadal vein (GV) above iliac vessel bifurcation could prevent orchialgia. We aimed to assess incidence and duration of orchialgia after LLDN in male donors despite distal ligation of GV. Patients who underwent LLDN from 2014 to 2017 were included. Standard procedure consisted in distal ligation of GV, close to the renal vein confluence and proximal ureteral ligation. Patients' demographics, per-operative data, and post-operative consultation reports were retrospectively reviewed. Orchialgia and scrotal symptoms were assessed through a non-validated questionnaire by phone interview. Sixty-nine donors were included. Orchialgia incidence and testicular swelling were 31.9% (n = 22) and 15.9% (n = 11), respectively. Median symptom duration was 15.5months. Orchialgia led to medical consultation in 41.7% (n = 10) of cases. All patients declared having been informed, prior to donation, about possible residual pain but not specifically orchialgia. Orchialgia after LLDN affects more than 30% of donors, despite distal ligation of GV and led less than 50% of them to medical consultation, suggesting a large underestimation in clinical practice. Emphasis should be put on this complication during pre-donation information.

Comparison of Outcomes of Open versus Laparoscopic Living Donor Nephrectomy in Nepal

Introduction: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is the gold standard for kidney retrieval in live donors. Until recently, donor nephrectomies were performed only by open technique in Nepal. There is no information on the experience and outcomes of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in Nepal. The study was done to compare the outcomes among donors undergoing open and laparoscopic nephrectomies, and to compare the graft related outcomes between the two groups receiving these kidneys. Methods: In this retrospective study, 44 kidney donors from March 2019 to October 2019 were analyzed. Donors were divided into 2 groups: open donor nephrectomy (ODN) and laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN). Parameters for analysis included demographic data, warm ischemia time, surgery time and length of hospital stay. Data on early graft function and complications in recipients till 30th post-operative day were compared. Results: There were 22 donors each in the ODN and LDN groups. Baseline characteristics of the donors were comparable between two groups. Mean surgery duration (183.55±43.31 minutes vs 117.73±18.75 minutes) and first warm ischemia time (11.22±4.34 minutes vs 2.3±0.8 minutes) was significantly high in LDN. Hemoglobin drop, post-operative complications in donors, creatinine of donors at discharge, mean hospital stay, graft function at one month and complications in recipients were comparable among ODN and LDN. Pain score in 1st post-operative day was comparable between two groups, however, pain was significantly less in second post-operative day in LDN. Conclusion: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is feasible in Nepal and associated with acceptable morbidity and graft function when compared to ODN.

Comparison of Outcomes of Open versus Laparoscopic Living Donor Nephrectomy in Nepal

Introduction Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is the gold standard for kidney retrieval in live donors. Until recently, donor nephrectomies were performed only by open technique in Nepal. There is no information on the experience and outcomes of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in Nepal. The study was done to compare the outcomes among donors undergoing open and laparoscopic nephrectomies, and to compare the graft related outcomes between the two groups receiving these kidneys.&#x0D; MethodsIn this retrospective study, 44 kidney donors from March 2019 to October 2019 were analyzed. Donors were divided into 2 groups: open donor nephrectomy (ODN) and laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN). Parameters for analysis included demographic data, warm ischemia time, surgery time and length of hospital stay. Data on early graft function and complications in recipients till 30th post-operative day were compared.&#x0D; ResultsThere were 22 donors each in the ODN and LDN groups. Baseline characteristics of the donors were comparable between two groups. Mean surgery duration (183.55±43.31 minutes vs 117.73±18.75 minutes) and first warm ischemia time (11.22±4.34 minutes vs 2.3±0.8 minutes) was significantly high in LDN. Hemoglobin drop, post-operative complications in donors, creatinine of donors at discharge, mean hospital stay, graft function at one month and complications in recipients were comparable among ODN and LDN. Pain score in 1st post-operative day was comparable between two groups, however, pain was significantly less in second post-operative day in LDN.&#x0D; ConclusionLaparoscopic donor nephrectomy is feasible in Nepal and associated with acceptable morbidity and graft function when compared to ODN.

Transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block for laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: Continuous catheter infusion provides no additional analgesic benefit over single-injection ropivacaine.

Transversus abdominis plane (TAP) blocks are useful for adjunctive pain control following laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (LLDN). The objective was to determine if TAP catheter provides additional analgesia compared with single-injection TAP block alone for kidney donors. In this prospective, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial, LLDN patients received a single TAP injection of 30mL 0.2% ropivacaine and had a catheter inserted into the TAP space. Postoperatively, either 0.2% ropivacaine (TAP catheter group; TAP-C) or saline (TAP saline group; TAP-S) was infused at 10mL/h. Pain scores, narcotic usage, nausea, and sedation were evaluated at 1, 12, 24, 36, 48, and 60hours. The study population included 70 patients (35 randomly assigned to each group). No differences in pain scores, narcotic usage, nausea, or sedation were observed at any time point (with the exception of lower median pain score for TAP-S at 60hours; 3.2 vs 3.9 for TAP-C; P=.03). The lower pain score for placebo group at 60-hour postoperative is likely clinically insignificant. The TAP catheter infusion provided no benefit over a single-injection TAP block; thus, the added risk and cost are not supported. Liposomal bupivacaine should be evaluated in future studies.

Configuration of the extra-renal venous system in relation to the left renal vein: A cadaveric study and new proposed classification

The advent of laparoscopic live-donor nephrectomy for renal transplantation has prompted the need to define the precise anatomical relations of the left renal vein (LRV) and its tributaries. The left kidney is preferred as the greater length of the LRV facilitates implantation in the recipient. While previous studies have described variations in the LRV system, the connections between the left ascending lumbar vein (LALV) and LRV tributaries have been less well-defined. This study aims to further characterise the LALV and proposes a novel classification for its relation to other veins.Dissection of the LRV system, including the left suprarenal vein (LSV), left gonadal vein (LGV) and LALV, was performed in 38 cadavers. Their drainage points into the LRV were recorded, and measurements taken of the distances from these points to the junction of the LRV and inferior vena cava (IVC).The position of the LRV in relation to the aorta was anterior in 35 cases (92%), entirely posterior in 1 case (3%), and circumaortic in 2 cases (5%). Duplication of the LSV and LGV occurred in 6 (16%) and 10 (27%) cases respectively. A direct posterior connection between the LALV and LRV was identified in 32 (86%) cases. The drainage point of the LALV into the LRV lay between the IVC and LGV in 8 (25%) cases. In 20 cases (63%), the drainage points of the LALV and LGV were equidistant from the IVC; and in 5 cases (16%), those of the LALV and posterior branch of the LRV were equidistant from the IVC. In these two groups, the vessels shared a confluent trunk in 10 and 4 cases respectively. In 3 cases, connections were observed between all three vessels (LALV, LGV and posterior branch of LRV). No confluence trunk was shared by the LALV and LSV.These results confirm the high incidence of communicating LALVs, which represent a potentially troublesome source of operative bleeding if unrecognised. Confluent venous trunks may also present difficulties during vessel ligation prior to nephrectomy. It is suggested that a novel classification of the relation of the LALV based on these findings may assist in surgical planning and reduce complications.

Changing Education Paradigms: Training Transplant Fellows for High Stake Procedures

Living kidney donation is a unique operation, as healthy patients are placed at risks inherent with major surgery without physical benefit. The ethical implications associated with any morbidity make it a high-stakes procedure. Fellowships are faced with the dilemma of optimizing fellow training in this demanding procedure while providing safe outcomes to donors. The Laparoscopic Living Donor Nephrectomy (LDN) Workshop is a resource that can provide intense instruction to help bridge the training deficit. Our aim was to examine the course's effectiveness in improving fellows' skill and confidence related to implementing LDN into future practice. From 2017 to 2018, 36 abdominal transplant surgery fellows participated in a 2-day workshop consisting of live surgery observation, cadaver lab, and didactic sessions. Surveys were completed precourse, postcourse, and at 3-month postcourse follow-up. Preworkshop, 61% of participants reported less than 50% confidence in independent performance of LDN. Following workshop completion, 95% reported improved confidence. At 3-month follow-up, there was a 30% (p < 0.05) increase in median confidence level. Immediately following the course, 67% reported improved ability to analyze kidneys prior to donation, 74% changed the way donor candidates were evaluated, and 67% reported enhanced ability to risk stratify donors. Eighty-five percent felt it strengthened operative techniques with 70% implementing new diagnostic treatments and surgical strategies. Seventy percent of participants felt it improved their communication with colleagues and 67% had enhanced communication with patients. These trends were maintained at 3-month follow-up. These results indicated that the LDN Workshop improves confidence and increases fellows' skillset in a high-stakes procedure. The LDN Workshop is a useful adjunct to fellowship training to optimize successful, efficient, and safe performance of a demanding procedure in a uniquely healthy donor population.

Evolution of Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy Techniques and Outcomes: A Single-Center Experience with More than 1000 Cases

BackgroundLaparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) has evolved and has been established as a surgical standard of care for kidney transplantation.Material/MethodsThis study retrospectively reviews 1132 patients who underwent 4 different laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomies: hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy (HALDN), pure laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (PLDN), laparoendoscopic single-site plus 1-port donor nephrectomy (LESSOP-DN), and mini laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (MLDN).ResultsThe mean estimated blood loss (EBL) for the HALDN group was meaningfully higher than those of LESSOP-DN and MLDN (57.5±52.2 mL versus 21.0±30.0 mL versus 18.2±28.7 mL) (P<0.001). The EBL for PLDN (53.3±35.3 mL) was also significantly higher than those of LESSOP-DN and MLDN (P<0.001). Length of stay (LOS) for HALDN was longer than that for LESSOP-DN (4.2±1.2 day versus 4.0±1.4 days, P=0.002). There was 1 intraoperative open conversion in the HALDN group and 2 HALDN surgeries that required postoperative exploratory laparotomy. LESSOP-DN had 3 (0.8%) postoperative incisional hernias. For recipients, the results revealed no significant differences between all 4 groups in terms of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and the 1-year graft failure rate.ConclusionsThe LESSOP-DN group was associated with a shorter incision length than those of HALDN and PLDN and shorter LOS than that of HALDN. Recipient results showed no meaningful difference regarding laparoscopic donor nephrectomy technique.

Effects of low versus standard pressure pneumoperitoneum on renal syndecan-1 shedding and VEGF receptor-2 expression in living-donor nephrectomy: a randomized controlled study

BackgroundLaparoscopic nephrectomy is a preferred technique for living kidney donation. However, positive-pressure pneumoperitoneum may have an unfavorable effect on the remaining kidney and other distant organs due to inflamed vascular endothelium and renal tubular cell injury in response to increased systemic inflammation. Early detection of vascular endothelial and renal tubular response is needed to prevent further kidney injury due to increased intraabdominal pressure induced by pneumoperitoneum. Transperitoneal laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy represented a human model of mild increasing intraabdominal pressure. This study aimed to assess the effect of increased intraabdominal pressure on vascular endothelium and renal tubular cells by comparing the effects of low and standard pressure pneumoperitoneum on vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2 (VEGFR-2) expression and the shedding of syndecan-1 as the early markers to a systemic inflammation.MethodsWe conducted a prospective randomized study on 44 patients undergoing laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Subjects were assigned to standard (12 mmHg) or low pressure (8 mmHg) groups. Baseline, intraoperative, and postoperative plasma interleukin-6, syndecan-1, and sVEGFR-2 were quantified by ELISA. Syndecan-1 and VEGFR-2 expression were assessed immunohistochemically in renal cortex tissue. Renal tubule and peritubular capillary ultrastructures were examined using electron microscopy. Perioperative hemodynamic changes, end-tidal CO2, serum creatinine, blood urea nitrogen, and urinary KIM-1 were recorded.ResultsThe low pressure group showed lower intra- and postoperative heart rate, intraoperative plasma IL-6, sVEGFR-2 levels and plasma syndecan-1 than standard pressure group. Proximal tubule syndecan-1 expression was higher in the low pressure group. Proximal-distal tubules and peritubular capillary endothelium VEGFR-2 expression were lower in low pressure group. The low pressure group showed renal tubule and peritubular capillary ultrastructure with intact cell membranes, clear cell boundaries, and intact brush borders, while standard pressure group showed swollen nuclei, tenuous cell membrane, distant boundaries, vacuolizations, and detached brush borders.ConclusionThe low pressure pneumoperitoneum attenuated the inflammatory response and resulted in reduction of syndecan-1 shedding and VEGFR-2 expression as the renal tubular and vascular endothelial proinflammatory markers to injury due to a systemic inflammation in laparoscopic nephrectomy.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT:03219398, prospectively registered on July 17th, 2017.

Re: Chronic Pain following Laparoscopic Living-Donor Nephrectomy: Prevalence and Impact on Quality of Life.

Re: Chronic Pain following Laparoscopic Living-Donor Nephrectomy: Prevalence and Impact on Quality of Life.