Search

Endoscopic techniques have contributed to early recovery and increased quality of life (QOL) of live kidney donors. However, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) may have its limitations, and hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy (HARP) has been introduced, mainly as a potentially safer alternative. In a randomized fashion, we explored the feasibility and potential benefits of HARP for right-sided donor nephrectomy in a referral center with longstanding expertise on the standard laparoscopic approach. Forty donors were randomly assigned to either LDN or HARP. Primary outcome was operating time, and secondary outcomes included QOL, complications, pain, morphine requirement, blood loss, warm ischemia time, and hospital stay. Follow-up time was 1 year. Skin-to-skin time did not significantly differ between both groups (162 vs. 158 min, P = 0.98). As compared to LDN, HARP resulted in a shorter warm ischemia time (2.8 vs. 3.9 min, P < 0.001) and increased blood loss (187 vs. 50 ml, P < 0.001). QOL, complication rate, pain, or hospital stay was not significantly different between the groups. Right-sided HARP is feasible but does not confer clear benefits over standard right-sided LDN yet. Further studies should explore the value of HARP in difficult cases such as the obese donor and the value of HARP for transplantation centers starting a live kidney donation program (Dutch Trial Register number: NTR3096). Nevertheless, HARP is a valuable addition to the surgical armamentarium in live donor surgery., (© 2013 Steunstichting ESOT. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) has become the gold standard for live-donor nephrectomy, as it results in a short convalescence time and increased quality of life. However, intraoperative safety has been debated, as severe complications occur incidentally. Hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy (HARP) is an alternative approach, combining the safety of hand-guided surgery with the benefits of endoscopic techniques and retroperitoneal access. We assessed the best approach to optimize donors' quality of life and safety., Methods: In two tertiary referral centers, donors undergoing left-sided nephrectomy were randomly assigned to HARP or LDN. Primary endpoint was physical function, one of the dimensions of the Short Form-36 questionnaire on quality of life, at 1 month postoperatively. Secondary endpoints included intraoperative events and operation times. Follow-up was 1 year., Results: In total, 190 donors were randomized. Physical function at 1 month follow-up did not significantly differ between groups (estimated difference, 1.79; 95% confidence interval, -4.1 to 7.68; P=0.55). HARP resulted in significantly shorter skin-to-skin time (mean, 159 vs. 188 min; P<0.001), shorter warm ischemia time (2 vs. 5 min; P<0.001) and a lower intraoperative event rate (5% vs. 11%, P=0.117). Length of stay (both 3 days; P=0.135) and postoperative complication rate (8% vs. 8%; P=1.00) were not significantly different. Potential graft-related complications did not significantly differ (6% vs. 13%; P=0.137)., Conclusions: Compared with LDN, left-sided HARP leads to similar quality of life, shorter operating time, and warm ischemia time. Therefore, we recommend HARP as a valuable alternative to the laparoscopic approach for left-sided donor nephrectomy.

Background: Expanding the use of elderly live donors may help meet the demand for kidney transplants. The aim of this study was to quantify the effect of the surgical procedure on the quality of life (QOL) of elderly donors compared with younger donors., Methods: Alongside three prospective studies (two randomized) running between May 2001 and October 2010, we asked 501 live donors to fill out the Short Form-36 questionnaire preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. We defined live donors 60 years or older as elderly. Between-group analyses regarding QOL were adjusted for baseline values and gender., Results: One hundred thirty-five donors were older and 366 donors were younger than 60 years. The response rate was high, with 87% at 12 months postoperatively. Elderly donors less often scored as American Society of Anaesthesiology classification 1 (60% vs. 81%; P<0.001) indicating a higher rate of minor comorbidity. At 1 month postoperatively, between-group analysis showed a significant advantage in QOL in favor of the elderly group regarding the dimensions "bodily pain" (7 points; P=0.001), "role physical" (18 points; P<0.001), and "vitality" (5 points; P=0.008). At 3 months, "bodily pain" (3 points, P=0.04) and "role physical" (8 points, P=0.02) were still in favor of the older group. At 6 and 12 months, "physical function" was in favor of the younger group (3 and 5 points, respectively; P=0.04 and P<0.001)., Conclusions: This study demonstrates that elderly donors recover relatively fast. The perspective of excellent postoperative QOL may help convince elderly individuals to donate.

Background: Live donor nephrectomy is routinely performed. However, little is known regarding the incision-related outcome. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the prevalence of incisional hernias (IH) and to assess body image and cosmesis scores after donation., Methods: Questionnaires on IH, body image, and cosmesis were sent to all donors who underwent laparoscopic donor nephrectomy or mini-incision donor nephrectomy between January 2000 and December 2009., Results: In total, 444 replies were received (75 %). Seven donors (1.5 %) had undergone a surgical correction of an IH. Surgical site infection and steroid use appeared to be independent risk factors for the development of an IH (p = 0.001 and 0.021, respectively). Body image and cosmesis scores were excellent. Elderly donors had significantly higher cosmesis scores when compared with young donors (p < 0.001). Donor age of 60 years or higher, correction of an IH, and survival of the recipient appeared to be independent factors associated with a higher score on the cosmesis scale in multivariate analysis., Conclusions: This is the largest study describing the prevalence of IH and cosmetic outcome after donor nephrectomy. The prevalence of IH after live donor nephrectomy is very low, and body image and cosmesis scores are excellent. Consequently, incision-related outcomes pose no barrier to live donor nephrectomy.

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) is less traumatic and painful than the open approach, with shorter convalescence time. Hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic (HARP) donor nephrectomy may have benefits, particularly in left-sided nephrectomy, including shorter operation and warm-ischemia time (WIT) and improved safety. We evaluated outcomes of HARP alongside LDN. From July 2006 to May 2008, 20 left-sided HARP procedures and 40 left-sided LDNs were performed. Intra and postoperative data were prospectively collected and analysis on outcome of both techniques was performed. More female patients underwent HARP compared to LDN (75% vs. 40%, P = 0.017). Other baseline characteristics were not significantly different. Median operation time and WIT were shorter in HARP (180 vs. 225 min, P = 0.002 and 3 vs. 5 min, P = 0.007 respectively). Blood loss did not differ (200 ml vs.150 ml, P = 0.39). Intra and postoperative complication rates for HARP and LDN (respectively 10% vs. 25%, P = 0.17 and 5% vs. 15%, P = 0.25) were not significantly different. During median follow-up of 18 months estimated glomerular filtration rates in donors and recipients and graft- and recipient survival did not differ between groups. Hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy reduces operation and warm ischemia times, and provides at least equal safety. Hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic may be a valuable alternative for left-sided LDN.

Summary: 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.

Background: Live donor kidneys with multiple arteries are associated with surgical complexity for removal and increased rate of recipient ureteral complications. We evaluated the outcome of vascular imaging and the clinical consequences of multiple arteries and veins., Methods: From 2001 to 2005 data of 288 live kidney donations and transplantations were prospectively collected. Vascular anatomy at operation was compared with vascular anatomy as imaged by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or subtraction angiography, and consequences of multiple vessels were investigated., Results: Simple renal anatomy with a solitary artery and vein was present in 208 (72%) kidneys. Sixty (21%) transplants had multiple arteries. Thirty (10%) transplants had multiple veins. Magnetic resonance imaging failed to predict arterial anatomy in 23 of 220 donors (10%) compared with 3 of 101 (3%) after angiography. The presence of multiple veins did not influence outcomes after nephrectomy in general. Multiple arteries did not affect clinical outcomes in open donor nephrectomy (n=103). In laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (n=185) multiple arteries were associated with longer operation times (245 vs. 221 min, P=0.023) and increased blood loss (225 vs. 220 mL, P=0.029). In general, neither multiple arteries nor vascular reconstructions influenced recipient creatinine clearance or ureteral complication rate. However, accessory arteries to the lower pole correlated with an increased rate of ureteral complications (47% vs. 14%, P=0.01)., Conclusions: Multiple arteries may increase operation time. Accessory lower pole arteries are associated with a higher rate of recipient ureteral complications indicating the importance of arterial imaging. Currently, both magnetic resonance imaging and angiography provide suboptimal information on renal vascular anatomy.

Background and Purpose: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) has been associated with delayed graft function compared with open donor nephrectomy (ODN). We have recently shown that the adverse effect of pneumoperitoneum (PP) on hemodynamics could be prevented by a new fluid regime. The aim of this study was to test the effect of this fluid regime on the kidney function of the donor and recipient after LDN and ODN., Patients and Methods: We prospectively collected data of 51 donors undergoing ODN and 59 donors undergoing LDN as well as data from the corresponding recipients. All donors and recipients were treated with a standardized anesthesia and fluid regime. This fluid regime consisted of preoperative overnight hydration together with a bolus of colloid administered before induction of anesthesia and before introduction of PP. Follow-up was 2 years., Results: Baseline characteristics of the two groups were comparable. Hemodynamics and urine output until nephrectomy were comparable between both groups. Donor kidney function did not differ after ODN and LDN. Estimated glomerular filtration rate, graft survival, and recipient survival did not differ between open and laparoscopically procured transplants. No adverse effects of the novel fluid regime (eg, pulmonary edema or additional oxygen supply) were observed in the donors., Conclusion: In contrast to our earlier findings, the kidney function of the donor and recipient is comparable between ODN and LDN after introduction of a new fluid regime.

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

Background: The increasing number of live kidney donors in the last decade has stimulated interest in the surgical technique of donor nephrectomy. In this study, we evaluated the current status of the surgical approach in European transplant centers., Methods: A questionnaire was sent to 131 centers in 12 European countries. Questions included the number of donors, the technique used, and the inclusion and exclusion criteria for a technique., Results: Ninety-two replies (70%) were included. In the responding centers, approximately 1450 live donor nephrectomies were performed in 2004 (more than 80% of all live kidney donations in these countries). The number of living donors ranged from 0 to 95 per center. Nineteen institutions (21%) removed kidneys using endoscopic techniques only. Twenty-two centers (24%) performed both open and laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Vessel length, difficult anatomy and right-sided donor nephrectomy were common reasons to choose an open technique. Twelve centers had performed laparoscopic donor nephrectomy but quit their program for various reasons. In 51 centers (55%), only open donor nephrectomy was carried out. Lack of evidence that endoscopic techniques provide better results was the main reason for these centers to stick to an open approach. Incisional hernias occurred after all types of open surgery in up to 30% of the donors per center. Twenty-nine clinics still carry out the classic flank incision., Conclusion: The surgical technique of live donor nephrectomy varies greatly between transplant centers in European countries. To define the optimal surgical approach a European registration of donor nephrectomies would be helpful.

In Europe, the vast majority of transplant centres still performs open donor nephrectomy. This approach can therefore be considered the gold standard. At our institution, classic lumbotomy (CL) was replaced by a mini-incision anterior flank incision (MIDN) thereby preserving the integrity of the muscles. Data of 60 donors who underwent MIDN were compared with 86 historical controls who underwent CL without rib resection. Median incision length measured 10.5 and 20 cm (MIDN versus CL, P < 0.001). Median operation time was 158 and 144 min (P = 0.02). Blood loss was significantly less after MIDN (median 210 vs. 300 ml, P = 0.01). Intra-operatively, 4 (7%) and 1 (1%) bleeding episodes occurred. Postoperatively, complications occurred in 12% in both groups (P = 1.00). Hospital stay was 4 and 6 days (P < 0.001). In one (2%) and 11 (13%) donors (P = 0.02) late complications related to the incision occurred. After correction for baseline differences, recipient serum creatinine values were not significantly different during the first month following transplantation. In conclusion, MIDN is a safe approach, which reduces blood loss, hospital stay and the number of incision related complications when compared with CL with only a modest increase in operation time.

Background: The introduction of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) has encouraged the development of less invasive open techniques. Aim of the present study was to compare short-term outcomes between contemporary cohorts of donors who underwent either mini-incision open or laparoscopic kidney donation., Methods: From May 2001 to September 2004 data of all living kidney donations and transplantations were prospectively collected. Fifty-one donors underwent mini-incision, muscle-splitting open donor nephrectomy (MIDN) and 49 donors underwent LDN., Results: Baseline characteristics of donors and recipients in the study groups were comparable except for donors' gender. Median incision length in MIDN was 10.5 cm. In two patients LDN was converted to open. MIDN resulted in significantly shorter warm ischemia and operation time (2.5 vs. 6.5 min and 157 vs. 240 min respectively). During MIDN, donors had more blood loss (200 vs. 120 ml, P=0.02). Disposables used for MIDN were cheaper (328 vs. 1784 Euros). In the LDN group 4 (8%) major intraoperative and 2 (4%) major postoperative complications occurred versus no major complications in the MIDN group. Morphine requirement, pain and nausea perception, and time to dietary intake did not significantly differ between the groups. Following MIDN, donors were discharged later (4 vs. 3 days, P=0.02). Transplantation of kidneys procured by either approach led to a similar decline in serum creatinine throughout the first year. One-year graft survival was 100% following MIDN and 86% following LDN (P=0.005)., Conclusion: MIDN and LDN both lead to satisfactory results. Both techniques can be used to expand living donor programs.

Adhesion formation following abdominal surgery causes substantial burden to society. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) offers an opportunity to study the prevalence of adhesions in healthy individuals. Furthermore we evaluated whether or not adhesions hindered LDN. Data of 161 LDNs were prospectively collected. The presence of adhesions was documented. Parameters influenced by the presence of adhesions such as operation time, blood loss, and intraoperative complications were documented. Twenty-eight of 44 donors (64%) who had had prior abdominal surgery presented with adhesions at laparoscopy versus 61 of 107 donors (52%) who had no history of abdominal surgery ( P = 0.22). Conversion and complication rate, operation times, and blood loss did not differ between those with and without a previous history of abdominal surgery. Blood loss and operation time did not differ between donors with and without adhesions. The number of conversions to open was significantly higher in donors with adhesions (9 versus 0, P = 0.005). Three conversions were due to adhesions. Adhesions are present in a significant number of healthy individuals regardless of a history of previous abdominal operations. As these operations are of no predictive value for the number and complexity of adhesion formation, we advocate starting live kidney donation laparoscopically as the procedure can be most probably conducted successfully by this approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives To determine the best approach for live donor nephrectomy to minimise discomfort to the donor and to provide good graft function. Design Single blind, randomised controlled trial. Setting Two university medical centres, the Netherlands. Participants 100 living kidney donors. Interventions Participants were randomly assigned to either laparoscopic donor nephrectomy or to mini incision muscle splitting open donor nephrectomy. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was physical fatigue using the multidimensional fatigue inventory 20 (MFI-20). Secondary outcomes were physical function using the SF-36, hospital stay after surgery, pain, operating times, recipient graft function, and graft survival. Results Conversions did not occur. Compared with mini incision open donor nephrectomy, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy resulted in longer skin to skin time (median 221 v 164 minutes, P < 0.001), longer warm ischaemia time (6 v 3 minutes, P < 0.001), less blood loss (100 v 240 ml, P < 0.001), and a similar number of complications (intraoperatively 12% v 6%, P = 0.49, postoperatively both 6%). After laparoscopic nephrectomy, donors required less morphine (16 v 25 mg, P = 0.005) and shorter hospital stay (3 v 4 days, P = 0.003). During one year's follow-up mean physical fatigue was less (difference - 1.3, 95% confidence interval - 2.4 to - 0.1) and physical function was better (difference 6.2, 2.0 to 10.3) after laparoscopic nephrectomy. Function of the graft and graft survival rate of the recipient at one year censored for death did not differ (100% after laparoscopic nephrectomy and 98% after open nephrectomy). Conclusions Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy results in a better quality of life compared with mini incision open donor nephrectomy but equal safety and graft function. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]