Location of Repository

Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy – Evolution of Technique and Donor Outcomes

By Monika Kaushik

Abstract

Background: The interest in living donor transplantation has been driven by the continuing fall in available cadaveric organs for transplantation. During the last five years there has been a substantial growth in living donor kidney transplantation in the UK but there is still considerable room for expansion in comparison with activity in Scandinavia and the USA.\ud Traditionally kidneys have been harvested from donors via a loin incision with partial resection of the twelfth rib, which placed a considerable burden on the donors in terms of post-operative pain, absence from work, and morbidity.\ud Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy developed in 1995, promised to reduce these burdens on the donors and reduce some of the disincentives to kidney donation. Several comparative studies have shown this new technique to hold promise in terms of less pain and faster inpatient and outpatient recovery.\ud However there were some concerns in procuring the kidneys with this technique, namely, increase in warm ischaemia times and the quality of graft.\ud Methods: This was addressed in the setting of a prospective randomised controlled trial of laparoscopic versus limited incision live donor nephrectomy. Live kidney donors were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to laparoscopic (LDN n=56) or short incision open donor nephrectomy (ODN n=28). Quality of life was assessed using the Short-Form 36 questionnaire. Postoperative analgesia was by morphine PCAS. Pain scores were recorded using visual analogue and verbal response scales. Donor convalescence was self-reported using a prospective diary system. Our study was the first randomised control trial to present live donor transplant recipient data at a minimum follow-up of four years. There were no differences in renal function or allograft survival for kidneys removed by LDN (laparoscopic donor nephrectomy) or ODN (open donor nephrectomy) at this point. The other aspect of this study is that this is the first study to compare respiratory function after LDN and ODN.\ud During the evolution of LDN, the vessels are secured with various methods (endoclips, polymer clips and stapling device). These methods were compared with respect to complications and maximum length of vessels obtained. Technical modifications and improvement of techniques especially when comparing right and left donor nephrectomy are described.\ud Results: Postoperative morphine requirement was lower in the LDN group [median (range) 59 (6-136) vs ODN 90 (35-312)mg; p=0.01]. Donors in the LDN group returned to normal activities more quickly compared to the ODN group [median (range) days to: driving 21 (7- 70) vs 28 (7-70); p=0.05), exercise 28 (7-77) vs 42 (14-84); p=0.001, return to work 42 (14-\ud 84) vs 66.5 (14-112); p=0.001].\ud When compared to the pre-operative baseline, norm adjusted physical component scores\ud (PCS) fell significantly at 6 weeks in both the LDN (mean±SD 46.3±8.9 vs 55±6.9; p=0.001) and ODN groups (44.0±7.9 vs 52.7±9.0; p=0.008). Nonetheless, the bodily pain domain score of PCS was significantly better in the LDN group (57.5 to 49.5; p=0.0001). The mental component score also fell in the ODN group (48±10.2 vs 53.5±7.6; p=0.02). In contrast, there was no fall in the mental component score after LDN (mean±SD 51.9±7.2 vs 53.8±6.4;\ud p=0.29).\ud Conclusions: In conclusion, our trial has shown that laparoscopic donor nephrectomy removes some of the disincentives to live kidney donation. This can be achieved without any additional morbidity in the recipient. This study provides high-level evidence to show that laparoscopic donor nephrectomy improves recovery back to the normal activities of daily life, is less painful than open surgery and improves the mental component of quality of life

Publisher: University of Leicester
Year: 2010
OAI identifier: oai:lra.le.ac.uk:2381/9724

Suggested articles

Preview

Citations

  1. (1992). 20 years or more of follow up of living kidney donors. doi
  2. 2509 living donor nephrectomies, morbidity and mortality, including the UK introduction of laparoscopic donor surgery. doi
  3. (1999). A comparison of recipient renal outcomes with laparoscopic versus open live donor nephrectomy. doi
  4. (2000). A comparison of results of renal transplantation from non-heart beating, conventional cadaveric, and living donors. Kidney International doi
  5. A comparison of traditional open, minimal incision donor nephrectomy and laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. doi
  6. A survey: The prevalence of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy at large U.S transplant centres. doi
  7. A systematic review of laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. doi
  8. An anterior extraperitonal incision for donor nephrectomy that spares the rectus abdominis muscle and anterior abdominal wall nerves. doi
  9. An audit over 2 years’ practice of open and laparoscopic live-donor nephrectomy at renal transplant centres in the UK and Ireland. doi
  10. (1999). Anterior – retroperitoneal living donor nephrectomy: technique and outcomes. Am Surg
  11. Assessing the quality of reports of randomised clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? Control clinical Trials1996;17(1):1-12.
  12. Chavin K et al Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. The recipient. doi
  13. Clinical outcome of living kidney donation. Transplantation doi
  14. Clinical skills acquisition for handassisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. doi
  15. Comparative results of kidney transplantations from living donors. Transplantation doi
  16. (1997). Comparision of open and laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. Annals of Surgery doi
  17. (2005). Comparison Of lapaoscopic and open donor nephrectomy: a randomised controlled trial. doi
  18. Comparison of laparoscopic and mini incision open donor nephrectomy: single blind, randomised controlled clinical trial. doi
  19. Comparison of mortality in all patients on dialysis awaiting transplantation and recipient of a first cadaveric transplant. doi
  20. Comparison of open, laparoscopic, and hand-assisted approaches to livedonor nephrectomy. doi
  21. Construction and validation of an alternate form general mental health scale for the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36-Item Health Survey. Med Care1995;33(1):15-28. doi
  22. (2005). Control of the renal artery and vein with the non-absorbable polymer ligating clip in hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Transplantation doi
  23. Davies-Avery A et al. Overview of adult health status measures fielded in RAND’s Health Insurance Study. Med Care1979;17(7SS):1-131.
  24. Does kidney donation threaten the quality of life of the donor?
  25. Donor nephrectomy: a comparison of techniques and results of open, hand-assisted and full laparoscopic nephrectomy. doi
  26. Donor nephrectomy: mini-incision muscle-splitting open approach versus laparoscopy. doi
  27. Effects of intravascular volume expansion on renal function during prolonged CO2 pneumoperitoneum. doi
  28. et al Improved recipient results after 5 years of performing laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Transplantation doi
  29. (1995). Evaluation of living renal donors. The current practice of US transplant centres. doi
  30. (1955). Experiences with renal homotransplantations in the human: report of nine cases. doi
  31. Experimentelle Nierentransplantation.
  32. Farney A et al. Increased rates of donation with laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. doi
  33. Gift of life: The social and psychological impact of organ transplantation. doi
  34. Hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy: Experience from the first 75 consecutive cases. doi
  35. Hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy: experience from the first 75 consecutive cases. Transplantation 2005;80:1060- doi
  36. Health insurance for kidney donors: how easy is it to obtain? doi
  37. High survival rates of kidney transplants from spousal and living unrelated donors. doi
  38. Higher quality of life in living donor kidney transplantation: prospective cohort study. doi
  39. (2000). How to score Version Two of the SF-36 Health Survey. Lincoln, RI: QualityMetric Incorporated
  40. (1998). Improved graft survival after renal transplantation in the United States, doi
  41. indications, and outcomes of pure laparoscopic right donor nephrectomy. doi
  42. (2001). Interaortocaval renal artery dissection for right laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Transplantation doi
  43. JD et al Randomised controlled trial of hand-assisted laparoscopic versus open surgical Live donor nephrectomy. doi
  44. (1999). Kidney donors don’t regret.
  45. (1997). Kidney donors live longer. doi
  46. Kidney transplantation from living unrelated donors: Comparison of outcome with living related and cadaveric transplants under current immunosuppressive protocols. doi
  47. Kidney transplantation with living donors : better long term survival. Transplantation proceedings 1999;31:2294-5. doi
  48. Kidney Transplantation: a history. In: doi
  49. (1902). La technique operatoire des anastomoses vasculaires et al transplantation des vesceres.
  50. Laparoscopic (vs open) live donor nephrectomy : a UNOS database analysis of early graft function and survival. doi
  51. (2000). Laparoscopic and open live donor nephrectomy: a cost / benefit study. Transplant International doi
  52. (1997). Laparoscopic assisted live donor nephrectomy – a comparison with the open approach. doi
  53. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy vs open live donor nephrectomy: a quality of life and functional study. doi
  54. (2004). Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: The University of Maryland 6-year experience J Urol doi
  55. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. doi
  56. (2000). Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy – Is it safe? Transplantation doi
  57. Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy in the presence of circumaortic or retroaortic left renal vein. doi
  58. (1997). Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy removes disincentives to live donation. Transplantation doi
  59. (2001). Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: A comparison with the conventional approach. doi
  60. Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: a new technique with preservation of vascular length. doi
  61. (1999). Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: Pro Urology doi
  62. (1995). Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy.
  63. Laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy: advantages of the hand-assisted method. doi
  64. Laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy. doi
  65. Laparoscopic or open surgery for living donor nephrectomy.
  66. Laparoscopic right donor nephrectomy for live kidney donation: functional Results. doi
  67. Laparoscopic versus open donor nephrectomy: Ureteric complications in recepeints. doi
  68. Laparoscopic versus open donor nephrectomy. doi
  69. Laparoscopic versus open donor nephrectomy. Comparing ureteral complications in the recipients and improving the laparoscopic technique. doi
  70. Laparoscopic versus open live donor nephrectomy: the first randomised clinical trial. Transplantation doi
  71. Laparoscopic versus open living donor nephrectomy : experiences from a Prospective, randomised, single-centre study focussing on donoar safety. doi
  72. Late postoperative nocturnal dips in oxygen saturation in patients undergoing major abdominal vascular surgery. doi
  73. (1992). Living donor nephrectomy. Complication rates in 490 cases. doi
  74. (1995). Living donor transplants. doi
  75. Living related kidney donors. A 14 year experience.
  76. (1995). Long term effects of reduced renal mass in humans. doi
  77. Long term follow-up of kidney donors: a longitudinal study. doi
  78. Long-term follow up of living kidney donors: quality of life after donation. doi
  79. (1986). Long-term renal function in kidney donors: a comparison of donors and their siblings. doi
  80. (1992). Measuring functioning and Well-Being: The Medical Outcomes Study Approach. Durham NC: doi
  81. Minimal incision living donor nephrectomy: improvement in patient outcome. doi
  82. Morbidity and mortality after living kidney donation, 199-2001: survey of United States transplant centres. doi
  83. (1999). Morbidity of flank incision for renal donors. Urology doi
  84. Morbidity of flank incision in 100 renal donors.
  85. (1994). Oliguria during laparoscopic surgery. doi
  86. One versus two proficient laparoscopic surgeons for laparoscopic live donor Nephrectomy. doi
  87. Open vs. laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in renal transplantation. doi
  88. (1998). Postal survey of living donor transplant units. Presented at the symposium “Meeting the challenges if live donation”.
  89. (1991). Postoperative myocardial ischaemia: Temporal association with nocturnal hypoxaemia. doi
  90. Postoperative pain and convalescence in living kidney donors – laparoscopic versus open donor nephrectomy: A randomised study. doi
  91. Prospective case matched comparison of hand assisted laparoscopic and open surgical live donor nephrectomy. doi
  92. (1996). prospective, single-blind comparison of laparoscopic versus small-incision cholecystectomy. The Lancet doi
  93. Quality of life after randomisation to laparoscopic versus open living donor nephrectomy : Long-term follow-up. doi
  94. Quality of life in Norwegian kidney donors. Nephrol Dial Transplant1993;(8):1146-50.
  95. Quality of life of living kidney donors: The short-form 36 item health questionnaire survey. doi
  96. Quality of life, pain and return to normal activities following laparoscopic donor nephrectomy versus open mini-incision donor nephrectomy. doi
  97. Reaching for the impossible: the quest for tissue replacement.
  98. (1996). Reasons for not accepting living kidney donors. doi
  99. Renal artery clip dislodgement during hand-assisted laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy. Surg Endosc.2003 Nov;17(11):1851. doi
  100. Renal physiology. Laparoscopic considerations.
  101. (2002). Renovascular complications of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Urology doi
  102. (1992). Results of the national kidney transplantation program in Norway. Clinical Transplantation
  103. Retropritoneoscopy-assisted living donor nephrectomy:109 cases. Transplantation doi
  104. Right-sided laparoscopic live-donor nephrectomy: is reluctance still justified. doi
  105. Scales for measuring general health perceptions. Health Serv Res1976;11(4):396-415.
  106. (1990). Selection criteria for the evaluation of living related renal donors.
  107. Singlecentre analysis of living-donor nephrectomy, hand-assisted laparoscopic, pure laparoscopic, and traditional open. doi
  108. Successful homotransplantations of the human kidney between identical twins.
  109. The AAFP-UNC study of the organization, utilization and assessment of primary medical care. doi
  110. The Hem-o-lok clip is safe for laparoscopic nephrectomy: a multi-institutional review. doi
  111. The IQOLA Project Group. The SF-36® Health Survey: development and use in mental health research and the IQOLA Project. doi
  112. The living donor in kidney transplantation.
  113. (1987). The living donor in kidney transplantation. Ann Intern Med. doi
  114. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF36®):I.conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care1992;30(6):473-83. doi
  115. The Psychological General Well –Being (PGWB) doi
  116. The quality of life of donors and recipients of living related donor renal transplantation.
  117. The safety and efficacy of laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: A systematic review.
  118. The validation of a functional status index.
  119. The Wisconsin Quality of Life Index: a multidimentional model for measuring quality of life.
  120. Toward an operational definition of health.
  121. (2003). Transplant: from myth to reality. doi
  122. Transplantation of kidneys from donors whose hearts have stopped beating. doi
  123. (2004). Use of Hem-o-lok clips effectively lengthens renal vein during laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. Transplant Proceedings. doi
  124. Vascular control of the renal pedicle using the hem-o-lok polymer ligating clip in 50 consecutive hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomies. doi
  125. Ventilatory and haemodynamic changes during retroperitoneal and transperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy: a prospective real-time comparison. doi
  126. Waiting time on dialysis as the strongest modifiable risk factor for renal transplant outcomes. doi
  127. Why should we implement living donation in renal transplantation?

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.