Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Mini-laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy with the use of 3-mm instruments and laparoscope

  • Original Article
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To analyze our preliminary outcomes on the use of 3 mm instruments for laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (LLDN).

Methods

Our series includes thirteen patients, who underwent LLDN using 3-mm instruments and laparoscope and 5-mm transumbilical trocar. The patients were followed at 7 and 14 days from discharge and were specifically asked about their cosmetic satisfaction. At follow-up, the recipient graft function was controlled, as well as the donor’s cosmetic results. Eight months after surgery, all thirteen patients were asked to fill out the Patient Scar Assessment Questionnaire and Scoring System (PSAQ).

Results

All patients presented good recovery after surgery. Regarding cosmetic outcomes, the donors expressed their satisfaction toward the minimal incision size and optimal esthetic results at 7 and 14 days from discharge home. The low scores on each section of the PSAQ confirmed the favorable outcomes. Early graft function was satisfactory at 1 and 3 months after the kidney transplantation. Furthermore, there were no major complications in the recipients.

Conclusions

Our persistent positive results with the use of 3-mm instruments during LLDN support this technique as a good alternative to the standard laparoscopic approach for minimizing the incision site, while maintaining safety and excellent clinical outcomes. The fact that the general laparoscopic standards are maintained could make this approach a very attractive alternative to the other minimally invasive approaches for live donor nephrectomy. The hope is in that the higher degree of satisfaction in the donor population demonstrated in this study may likely enhance living kidney donation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Velidedeoglu E, Williams N, Brayman KL et al (2002) Comparison of open, laparoscopic, and hand-assisted approaches to live-donor nephrectomy. Transplantation 74:169–172

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Cadeddu JA, Ratner L, Kavoussi LR (2000) Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Semin Laparosc Surg 7:195–199

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ratner LE, Kavoussi LR, Sroka M et al (1997) Laparoscopic assisted live donor nephrectomy—a comparison with the open approach. Transplantation 63:229–233

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Chan DY, Ratner LE, Kavoussi LR (1999) Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: standard of care or unnecessary risk of organ loss? Curr Opin Urol 9:219–222

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Park YH, Min SK, Lee JN et al (2004) Comparison of survival probabilities for living-unrelated versus cadaveric renal transplant recipients. Transplant Proc 36:2020–2022. doi:10.1016/j.transproceed.2004.08.122

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Harper JD, Breda A, Leppert JT et al (2010) Experience with 750 consecutive laparoscopic donor nephrectomies—is it time to use a standardized classification of complications? J Urol 183:1941–1946. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2010.01.021

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Wright AD, Will TA, Holt DR et al (2008) Laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy: a look at current trends and practice patterns at major transplant centers across the United States. J Urol 179:1488–1492. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2007.11.066

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hiller J, Sroka M, Holochek MJ et al (1997) Functional advantages of laparoscopic live-donor nephrectomy compared with conventional open-donor nephrectomy. J Transpl Coord Off Publ North Am Transpl Coord Organ NATCO 7:134–140

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Fornara P, Doehn C, Seyfarth M, Jocham D (2000) Why is urological laparoscopy minimally invasive? Eur Urol 37:241–250

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lam JS, Breda A, Schulam PG (2007) Is laparoscopic donor nephrectomy the new standard? Nat Clin Pract Urol 4:186–187. doi:10.1038/ncpuro0755

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Alcaraz A, Musquera M, Peri L et al (2011) Feasibility of transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery-assisted living donor nephrectomy: is kidney vaginal delivery the approach of the future? Eur Urol 59:1019–1025. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2011.03.021

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Canes D, Berger A, Aron M et al (2010) Laparo-endoscopic single site (LESS) versus standard laparoscopic left donor nephrectomy: matched-pair comparison. Eur Urol 57:95–101. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2009.07.023

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Musquera M, Peri L, Izquierdo L et al (2011) Pioneer experience in Spain with LSSS nephrectomy in living donor. Actas Urol Esp 35:559–562. doi:10.1016/j.acuro.2011.04.007

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gill IS, Canes D, Aron M et al (2008) Single port transumbilical (E-NOTES) donor nephrectomy. J Urol 180:637–641. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2008.04.028 (discussion 641)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Gagner M, Garcia-Ruiz A (1998) Technical aspects of minimally invasive abdominal surgery performed with needlescopic instruments. Surg Laparosc Endosc 8:171–179

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Soble JJ, Gill IS (1998) Needlescopic urology: incorporating 2-mm instruments in laparoscopic surgery. Urology 52:187–194

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Gill IS, Ross JH, Sung GT, Kay R (2000) Needlescopic surgery for cryptorchidism: the initial series. J Pediatr Surg 35:1426–1430. doi:10.1053/jpsu.2000.16405

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Durani P, McGrouther DA, Ferguson MW (2009) The patient scar assessment questionnaire: a reliable and valid patient-reported outcomes measure for linear scars. Plast Reconstr Surg 123:1481–1489. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181a205de

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Breda A, Villamizar JM, Faba OR et al (2012) Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy with the use of 3-mm instruments and laparoscope: initial experience at a tertiary center. Eur Urol 61:840–844. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2011.11.038

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Breda A, Veale J, Liao J, Schulam PG (2007) Complications of laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy and their management: the UCLA experience. Urology 69:49–52. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2006.09.030

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Breda A, Bui MH, Liao JC, Schulam PG (2007) Association of bowel rest and ketorolac analgesia with short hospital stay after laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Urology 69:828–831. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2007.01.083

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Breda A, Bui MH, Liao JC et al (2006) Incidence of ureteral strictures after laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. J Urol 176:1065–1068. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2006.04.079

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Greco F, Hoda MR, Alcaraz A et al (2010) Laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy: analysis of the existing literature. Eur Urol 58:498–509. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2010.04.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Carvalho GL, Cavazzola LT, Rao P (2013) Minilaparoscopic surgery—not just a pretty face! What can be found beyond the esthetics reasons? J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 23:710–713. doi:10.1089/lap.2013.0147

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Fiori C, Morra I, Bertolo R et al (2013) Standard vs mini-laparoscopic pyeloplasty: perioperative outcomes and cosmetic results. BJU Int 111:E121–E126. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11376.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Pini G, Goezen AS, Schulze M et al (2012) Small-incision access retroperitoneoscopic technique (SMART) pyeloplasty in adult patients: comparison of cosmetic and post-operative pain outcomes in a matched-pair analysis with standard retroperitoneoscopy: preliminary report. World J Urol 30:605–611. doi:10.1007/s00345-011-0740-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Tisdale BE, Kapoor A, Hussain A et al (2007) Intact specimen extraction in laparoscopic nephrectomy procedures: Pfannenstiel versus expanded port site incisions. Urology 69:241–244. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2006.09.061

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Porpiglia F, Autorino R, Cicione A et al (2014) Contemporary urologic minilaparoscopy: indications, techniques, and surgical outcomes in a multi-institutional european cohort. J Endourol Endourol Soc. doi:10.1089/end.2014.0134

    Google Scholar 

  29. Simforoosh N, Soltani MH, Hosseini Sharifi SH et al (2013) Mini-laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: initial series. Urol J 10:1054–1058

    Google Scholar 

  30. Jacobs SC, Cho E, Foster C et al (2004) Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: the University of Maryland 6-year experience. J Urol 171:47–51. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000100221.20410.4a

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank all the patients participating in the study.

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Urology Department, Fundació Puigvert, Barcelona, Spain

    Alberto Breda, Ivan Schwartzmann, Esteban Emiliani, Oscar Rodriguez-Faba, Lluis Gausa, Jorge Caffaratti, Xavier Ponce de León & Humberto Villavicencio

Authors
  1. Alberto Breda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ivan Schwartzmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Esteban Emiliani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Oscar Rodriguez-Faba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Lluis Gausa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jorge Caffaratti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Xavier Ponce de León
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Humberto Villavicencio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alberto Breda.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Breda, A., Schwartzmann, I., Emiliani, E. et al. Mini-laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy with the use of 3-mm instruments and laparoscope. World J Urol 33, 707–712 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-014-1360-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-014-1360-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation