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: 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.