Advertisement

Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 21, Issue 5, pp 724–728 | Cite as

Complications after a 5-year experience with laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: the Indiana University Experience

  • C. P. Sundaram
  • G. L. Martin
  • A. Guise
  • J. Bernie
  • V. Bargman
  • M. Milgrom
  • A. Shalhav
  • M. Govani
  • W. Goggins
Article

Abstract

Background

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) is becoming the standard of care for living donor nephrectomy. However, questions have been raised about the safety of LDN for the donor and about the potentially increased rates for ureteral complications experienced by the recipient. In this report, the authors review their 5-year experience with 253 living laparoscopic donor nephrectomies.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was performed for 253 laparoscopic live donors. Graft function and survival were compared using recipient postoperative creatinine values up to 12 months.

Results

The overall rate of complications in the investigated series was 10.3%. There were seven intraoperative complications (2.8%), three of which required open conversion. There were 19 postoperative complications (7.5%), three of which required reexploration for bleeding. The majority of complications were minor including 62% grade 1, 8% grade 2, 31% grade 3, and no grade 4 or 5 complications. There were no intraoperative complications in the right-sided donor group. There was a 5% complication rate for patients with a body mass index (BMI) exceeding 25. The findings showed that 11.2% of the recipients had slow graft function, and 4.4% had delayed graft function. Less than 1% of the recipients experienced ureteral stricture requiring permanent stent placement or reoperation. Overall, there was a 2% graft loss rate.

Conclusions

The findings show a low rate of intraoperative and postoperative complications, most of which were minor complications. There was an increase in operative time and hospital stay in the right-sided group, but no increase in complication rate. There was no significant difference in outcome or complication rate for the overweight patients.

Keywords

Complications Laparoscopy Nephrectomy Renal transplantation 

References

  1. 1.
    Cecka JM (2003) The OPTN/UNOS Renal Transplant Registry 2003. Clin Transplant 1–12Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dindo D, Demartine N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complication: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6,336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240: 205–213PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Friedman AL, Peters TG, Jones KW, Boulware LE, Ratner LE (2006) Fatal and nonfatal hemorrhagic complications of living kidney donation. Ann Surg 243:126–130PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Heimbach JK, Taler SJ, Prieto M, Cosio FG, Textor SC, Kudva YC, Chow GK, Ishitani MB, Larson TS, Stegall MD (2005) Obesity in living kidney donors: clinical characteristics and outcomes in the era of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Am J Transplant 5: 1057–1064PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jacobs SC, Cho E, Foster C, Liao P, Bartlett ST (2004) Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: the University of Maryland 6-year experience. J Urol 171: 47–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Leventhal JR, Kocak B, Salvalaggio PR, Koffron AJ, Baker TB, Kaufman DB, Fryer JP, Abecassis MM, Stuart FP (2004) Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy 1997 to 2003: lessons learned with 500 cases at a single institution. Surgery 136: 881–890PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nogueira JM, Cangro CB, Fink JC, Schweitzer E, Wiland A, Klassen DK, Gardner J, Flowers J, Jacobs S, Cho E, Philosophe B, Bartlett ST, Weir MR (1999) A comparison of recipient renal outcomes with laparoscopic versus open live donor nephrectomy. Transplantation 67: 722–728PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Philosophe B, Kuo PC, Schweitzer EJ, Farney AC, Lim JW, Johnson LB, Jacobs S, Flowers JL, Cho ES, Bartlett ST (1999) Laparoscopic versus open donor nephrectomy: comparing ureteral complications in the recipients and improving the laparoscopic technique. Transplantation 68: 497–502PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ratner LE, Ciseck LJ, Moore RG, Cigarroa FG, Kaufman HS, Kavoussi LR (1995) Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. Transplantation 60: 1047–1049PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ratner LE, Montgomery RA, Kavoussi LR (1999) Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: the four-year Johns Hopkins university experience. Nephrol Dial Transpl 14: 2090–2093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Simforoosh N, Bassiri A, Ziaee SA, Tabibi A, Salim NS, Pourrezagholi F, Moghaddam SM, Maghsoodi R, Shafi H (2003) Laparoscopic versus open live donor nephrectomy: the first randomized clinical trial. Transplant Proc 35: 2553–2554PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. P. Sundaram
    • 1
  • G. L. Martin
    • 1
  • A. Guise
    • 1
  • J. Bernie
    • 1
  • V. Bargman
    • 1
  • M. Milgrom
    • 2
  • A. Shalhav
    • 3
  • M. Govani
    • 4
  • W. Goggins
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of UrologyIndiana University School of MedicineIndianapolisUSA
  2. 2.Division of Transplant SurgeryIndiana University School of MedicineIndianapolisUSA
  3. 3.Division of UrologyUniversity of ChicagoChicagoUSA
  4. 4.Division of NephrologyIndiana University School of MedicineIndianapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations