Robot-assisted Transplant Ureteral Repair after Robot-assisted Kidney Transplant

Objective: To use a video to describe steps of robotic-assisted transplant ureteral repair (RATUR) for treating transplant ureteral stricture (TUS) in a patient who had undergone robot assisted kidney transplant (RAKT). Method: We recorded and edited the operation of a patient who experienced TUS by distal obstruction due to a calcification after RAKT and underwent RATUR in 2020. Results: We present a case of a 65-year-old male who developed graft dysfunction. He was found to have a short intrinsic obstruction of the distal transplant ureter due to a calcification that formed around the suture line at the ureteroneocystostomy. The video covers the steps of the operation which include positioning, placement of the ports, orientation, dissection of the paravesicle space, identification and dissection of the ureter, stent placement, reconstruction and post-operative course. We try to include tips and tricks that could be useful in other similar robotic cases. Conclusion: Open surgical repair of the transplant ureter is the standard of care for transplant ureteral stenosis. However, it requires the morbidity of a large surgical incision. Robotic assisted transplant ureteral repair can be done successfully while limiting convalescence from an open reoperation

Robotic-assisted Versus Open Technique for Living Donor Kidney Transplantation: A Comparison Using Propensity Score Matching for Intention to Treat

Living donor robotic-assisted kidney transplantation (RAKT) is an alternative to open kidney transplantation (OKT), but experience with this technique is limited in the United States. METHODS: A retrospective review of living donor kidney transplants performed between 2016 and 2018 compared RAKT with OKT with regard to recipient, donor, and perioperative parameters. A 1:1 propensity score matching was performed on recipient/donor age, sex, body mass index, race, preoperative dialysis, and calculated panel reactive antibodies. RESULTS: Outcomes of patient survival, graft survival, and postoperative complications were assessed for 139 transplants (47 RAKT and 92 OKT). Propensity score analysis (47:47) showed that RAKT recipients had longer warm ischemic times (49 versus 40 min; P \u3c 0.001) and less blood loss (100 versus 150 mL; P = 0.005). Operative time and length of stay were similar between groups. Postoperative serum creatinine was similar during a 2-y follow-up. Post hoc analysis excluding 4 open conversions showed lower operative time with RAKT (297 versus 320 min; P = 0.04) and lower 30-d (4.7% versus 23.4%; P = 0.02) and 90-d (7% versus 27.7%; P = 0.01) Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3 complications. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that RAKT is a safe alternative to OKT

Robotic-Assisted Versus Open Techniques for Living Donor Kidney Transplant Recipients: A Comparison Using Propensity Score Analysis

Background: Following the rapid advancements in minimally invasive urology, living donor robotic-assisted kidney transplantation (RAKT) has developed into a feasible alternative to open kidney transplantation (OKT). The procedure has been performed in multiple international programs, but a relative dearth of experience exists in the US. In this investigation, we compare RAKT to OKT using a propensity score analysis, to elucidate the safety and feasibility of RAKT as a suitable alternative to OKT. Methods: A retrospective review of 101 living kidney transplants (36 RAKT, 65 OKT), which occurred between January 2016 and June 2018, was conducted. Selection for RAKT was based on Robot availability. Recipient and donor demographic variable were collected, in addition to perioperative parameters. A propensity score analysis was conducted, matching for recipient age, gender, body mass index, race, pre-operative dialysis, preoperative serum creatinine, panel reactive antibody, and donor age. Primary outcomes assessed included perioperative factors such as estimated blood loss (EBL), cold ischemic time (CIT), warm ischemic time (WIT), operative time, as well as several patient outcomes including, length of stay, narcotics consumed on postoperative days one and two, and change in serum creatinine (SCr) at five time points (day 3, day 7, day 14, 6 months, and 1 year). Final analysis included 35 patients in each group. Results: Recipients’ (N=101) mean age was 49 years (range 19-74), with RAKT recipients slightly younger than OKT recipients (46 vs 51 years). 61 recipients were male and 62 white (29 Black, 10 other). Average recipient BMI was 29 (range 20-40), with equivalent BMIs in RAKT and OKT subsets. Following propensity score analysis, RAKT recipients demonstrated significantly greater WIT (49 vs 38 minutes, p\u3c0.001) and less EBL (62.5 vs 150 mL, p\u3c0.001). However, total operative time and overall length of stay were not significantly different in the groups. Postoperative narcotics consumed on postoperative days one and two were similar between the groups (31.8 vs 32.3 morphine equivalents). Additionally, SCr was evaluated at days 3, 7, and 14 as well as 6 months and 1 year, without significant differences between the groups. Conclusion: RAKT offers an important minimally invasive alternative to OKT, with a short learning curve, and similar graft and patient outcomes. Notably, this study compares RAKT to OKT with a heterogeneous study population, using propensity scoring. The largest limitation of this study is a small sample size. Interestingly, despite the significantly longer WIT in RAKT, we found an equivalence of SCr between groups in the early and intermediate postoperative period. Although the small sample size limits our ability to detect differences in graft and patient outcomes, trends demonstrate shorter lengths of stay, shorter operative times, and smaller amounts of blood loss for RAKT recipients. Additionally, trends demonstrate fewer narcotics administered by the second postoperative day. Similar to the advent of laparoscopic technology in living donor nephrectomy, early findings in RAKT demonstrate a safe and reasonable alternative for living donor kidney transplantation in various populations.https://scholarlycommons.henryford.com/merf2019clinres/1052/thumbnail.jp

Robot-assisted Transplant Ureteral Repair to treat transplant ureteral strictures in patients after Robot-assisted Kidney Transplant: a case series

OBJECTIVE: To describe the use of robotic-assisted transplant ureteral repair (RATUR) for treating transplant ureteral stricture (TUS) in 3 patients who had undergone robot assisted kidney transplant (RAKT). METHOD: We reviewed the medical records of 3 patients who experienced TUS after RAKT and who underwent RATUR between 2017 and 2020. The patients\u27 RAKT, post-transplant clinical course, endourological interventions, reoperation, and recovery were assessed. RESULTS: All patients diagnosed with TUS presented with deterioration of kidney function after RAKT. Method of diagnosis included ultrasound, antegrade ureterogram, and CT scan. All 3 patients had a short (\u3c1 \u3ecm) area of TUS and underwent RATUR. For 2 patients, distal strictures were bypassed with modified Lich-Gregoir ureteroneocystostomy reimplantation. One patient was treated with pyelo-ureterostomy to the contralateral native ureter. No intraoperative complications, conversions to open surgery, or significant operative blood loss requiring blood transfusion for any patient were observed. Also, no patients had urine leaks in the immediate or late postoperative period. After RATUR, 2 patients developed Clavien grade II complications with rectus hematoma or urinary tract infection. CONCLUSION: RATUR is a technically feasible operation for kidney transplant patients with TUS after RAKT. This procedure may provide the same benefits of open operation without promoting certain comorbidities that may occur from open surgical procedures