Pure Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy Research Articles

Laparoscopic Living Donor Nephrectomy: A Single Center Comparison of Three Different Techniques.

In this study, we compare three different surgical approaches at a single institution. Pure laparoscopic donor nephrectomy with Pfannenstiel incision (PLDN) was compared with hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy via midline hand port (HALDNM) and hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy via left iliac hand port (HALDNL). This study included all laparoscopic left donor nephrectomies performed at our institution between January 1, 2020 and December 31, 2021. Donor characteristics including age, sex, body mass index, number of renal arteries, duration of surgical procedure, warm ischemia time (WIT), and length of hospital stay were compared. Cosmetic scores were calculated by totaling the length of all incisions placed. Postoperative complications within 90 days were compared. During the study period 71 laparoscopic donor nephrectomies were performed of which 26 were HALDNM, 24 were HALDNL, and 21 were PLDN. Donor characteristics were similar in all three groups. Total operative time was significantly lower in HALDNM (181 minutes) than PLDN (233 minutes) and HALDNL (242 minutes) (p < 0.001). The WIT was comparable in all three groups: HALDNL (7.2 minutes), PLDN (4.1 minutes), and HALDM (4.9 minutes) (p = 0.913). Median cosmetic score was significantly better in the PLDN group (8.2 cm) when compared to HALDNM (11.1 cm) and HALDNL (9.9 cm) (p < 0.001). Our results show that all three technical modifications of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy are safe and feasible with good postoperative outcomes. HALDNM has the added benefit of decreased operative time while PLDN has a cosmetic advantage.

Solo-surgeon pure laparoscopic donor nephrectomy using passive camera holder: IDEAL stage 2a study

BackgroundSolo-surgery can be defined as a practice of a surgeon operating alone using a camera holder, without other surgical members except for a scrub nurse. This study was designed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of solo-surgeon pure laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.MethodsThe study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea. The brief study protocol was registered on the Clinical Research Information Service site of the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Candidates fulfilling all inclusion and exclusion criteria were enrolled in the clinical trial and underwent solo-surgeon pure laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. The feasibility was assessed by the proportion of subjects who could undergo solo-surgeon pure laparoscopic donor nephrectomy without difficulty. The perioperative complications were identified to assess the safety of solo-surgeon pure laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.ResultsOf the 47 potential candidates from November 2018 to August 2019, 40 were enrolled in the clinical trial and seven excluded due to declining participation. The feasibility of solo-surgeon pure laparoscopic donor nephrectomy was 100%, without an occasion of any difficulty requiring conversion to the human assisted pure laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Fourteen intraoperative complications occurred in 10 patients. The most common intraoperative complication was spleen injury. Two of three cases classified as the Satava classification grade II were due to the incomplete stapling of endoscopic stapler. Seventy-eight postoperative complications occurred in 34 patients. The most common postoperative complication was nausea/vomiting and followed by aspartate aminotransferase/alanine aminotransferase elevation. Most postoperative complication was independent of the solo-surgery itself.ConclusionsSolo-surgeon pure laparoscopic donor nephrectomy using passive camera holder is technically feasible. In terms of safety, it is necessary to adjust the scope of surgery performed alone.Trial Registration CRIS, KCT0003458. Registered 30/01/2019, Retrospectively registered, https://cris.nih.go.kr/cris/search/detailSearch.do/15868.

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.

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.

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.

Evolution of Living Donor Nephrectomy at a Single Center

The development of minimally invasive surgical approaches to donor nephrectomy (DN) has been driven by the potential advantages for the donor, with questions remaining about long-term outcomes. All living DN performed from June 1963 through December 2014 at the University of Minnesota were reviewed. Outcomes were compared among 4 DN techniques. We performed 4286 DNs: 2759 open DN (ODNs), 1190 hand-assisted (HA) laparoscopic DNs (LDNs), 203 pure LDN (P-LDNs), and 97 robot-assisted-LDN. Laparoscopic DN was associated with an older (P < 0.001) and heavier (P < 0.001) donor population. Laparoscopic DN was associated with a higher probability of left kidney procurement (P < 0.001). All 3 LDN modalities required a longer operative time (P < 0.001); robot-assisted-LDN took significantly longer than HA-LDN or P-LDN. Laparoscopic DN decreased the need for intraoperative blood transfusion (P < 0.001) and reduced the incidence of intraoperative complications (P < 0.001) and hospital length of stay (P < 0.001). However, LDN led to a significantly higher rate of readmissions, both short-term (<30 day, P < 0.001) and long-term (>30 day, P < 0.001). Undergoing HA-LDN was associated with a higher rate of an incisional hernia compared with all other modalities (P < 0.001). For recipients, LDN seemed to be associated with lower rates of graft failure at 1 year compared with ODN (P = 0.002). The odds of delayed graft function increased for kidneys with multiple arteries procured via P-LDN compared with HA-LDN (OR 3 [1,10]) and ODN (OR 5 [2, 15]). In our experience, LDN was associated with decreased donor intraoperative complications and hospital length of stay but higher rates of readmission and long-term complications.

Transition From Hand-Assisted to Pure Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy

Background and Objectives:We compared perioperative donor outcomes and early graft function of hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN) and pure laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (PLDN) performed by a single surgeon, to define the feasibility of technical transition from HALDN to PLDN.Methods:From October 1, 2012, through June 30, 2014, 60 donor nephrectomies were performed by a single surgeon who lacked experience with laparoscopic renal surgery: the first 30 by HALDN and the last 30 by PLDN. Operative and convalescence parameters were compared, as were intra- and postoperative complications within 90 days according to the Satava and Clavien-Dindo classifications, respectively. Binary logistic regression analysis was used to estimate the association of baseline characteristics with complications.Results:Baseline characteristics were similar in the 2 groups, except for American Society of Anesthesiologists score II (10.0% vs 43.3%; P = .007). All procedures were completed as planned. All operative and convalescence parameters of donors and graft outcomes were similar in the 2 groups, as were overall rates of intraoperative (43.3% vs 36.7%, P = .598) and postoperative (86.7% vs 70.0%; P = .209) complications. No factor was significantly predictive of intraoperative complications, whereas sex (female vs male, odds ratio, 0.183; P = .029) and learning curve (odds ratio, 0.602; P = .036) were significant determinants of postoperative complication.Conclusion:The technical transition from HALDN to PLDN does not involve a steep learning curve for surgeons less experienced with laparoscopic renal surgery and maintains similar perioperative donor and graft outcomes.

Pure Laparoscopic Versus Open Live Donor Nephrectomy: Evaluation of Health Survey and Graft Functions

Background Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) has become the gold standard in many kidney transplantation centers seeking to increase the number of potential live donors. This study was designed to compare the health surveys and graft functions between LDN and open donor nephrectomy (ODN). Methods We retrospectively analyzed all patients who underwent donor nephrectomy between December 2005 and September 2009 who had at least 1 year of follow-up. We reviewed demographic data, operative time, warm ischemia period, graft function, and quality of life. Results Among the 132 cases, 98 were pure LDN and 34 were ODN. Demographic data were similar in both groups. Operative times were significantly longer in the ODN group but warm ischemia times significantly longer in the LDN group. However, graft functions were similar in both groups. There was 1 graft loss due to arterial thrombosis of the transplanted kidney among the LDN group. Short-Form 36 health survey scores were similar except for the role-physical subscale. Conclusion Although we failed to observe a significant difference between ODN and LDN as far as the quality of life and graft functions were concerned, the previously documented advantages of laparoscopy with similar operative results suggest? LDN to be the gold standard for this procedure in our institution.

Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy: Comparison to Pure Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery is assumed to be easier to learn than the standard approach and simplifies intact kidney removal. Herein we have presented our experience performing hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN) compared with contemporary pure laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN). We retrospectively analyzed 55 patients who underwent LDN. Among the procedures, 21 were HALDN and 34 were pure LDN. We compared the two groups with regard to operative time, warm ischemic time (WIT), estimated blood loss, conversion rate, postoperative stay, and complications. For the HALDN group, the mean operative time was 191 minutes, WIT varied from 2 to 11 minutes, and bleeding estimates varied from 100 to 4000 mL. The overall complication rate of 28.6% included: vessel injury, urinary leakage, and paralytic ileus. In the LDN group, the mean operative time was 184 minutes, WIT varied from 2 to 10 minutes, and bleeding estimated varied 100 to 3000 mL. Three patients (8.8%) had complications including ureteral obstruction ( n = 1) and vessel injury ( n = 2). There was no significant difference between the two groups about the procedure and the complications. Our series suggested that HALDN and LDN were similar, with a tendency toward better results in LDN group, which also shows lower costs.