Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: Are ten cases per year enough to reach the quality standards? A report from a single small-volume transplant center

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy is the preferred method of kidney donation in high-volume US transplant centers, but for small transplant programs the question of the minimal case load per year necessary to reach the quality standards is open.

Patients and methods

From 1996 to 2007 we performed 130 live kidney donations including 93 laparoscopic donor nephrectomies followed by transplantation in a community hospital with an average case load of 10 laparoscopic cases per year. We compared the results after 37 open and 93 laparoscopic live donor operations with respect to operating time, conversion rate, complications, and recipients’ outcome.

Results

There were no significant differences in terms of safe outcome of donor patients after open or laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. The mean operating time was significantly shorter (p < 0.001) in the open group (125 min, OG) than in the laparoscopic group (150 min, LG). Mean hospital stay was significantly shorter (p < 0.001) in LG (6.8 days) versus OG (9.7 days). The conversion rate was 3.2% in the LG. Postoperative complication of donors consisted of temporary nerve irritation (two patients) and retroperitoneal hematoma (one patient) in the LG, and wound infection followed by hernia formation (one patient) and ileus 1 year after organ donation (one patient) in the OG. Safe outcome of the recipients after open (RaOD) or laparoscopic donation (RaLD) was similar. Uneventful transplantation occurred in 94.6% of the RaOD and in 92.5% of the RaLD. One kidney was lost due to renal vein thrombosis (RaLD). Mean postoperative creatinine after 4 weeks showed no difference between RaOD (1.6 mg/dl) and RaLD (1.7 mg/dl).

Conclusion

Approximately ten cases per year may be enough to ensure safety and quality of laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ratner LE, Ciseck LJ, Moore RG, Cigarroa FG, Kaufman HS et al (1995) Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. Transplantation 60:1047–1049

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Handschin AE, Weber M, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2003) Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Br J Surg 90:1323–1332

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bemelman WA, van Doorn RC, de Wit LT, Kox C, Surachno J et al (2001) Hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Ascending the learning curve. Surg Endosc 15:442–444

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Buell JF, Lee L, Martin JE, Dake NA, Cavanaugh TM et al (2005) Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy vs. open live donor nephrectomy: a quality of life and functional study. Clin Transplant 19:102–109

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kok NF, Alwayn IP, Lind MY, Tran KT, Weimar W et al (2006) Donor nephrectomy: mini-incision muscle-splitting open approach versus laparoscopy. Transplantation 81:881–887

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ratner LE, Kavoussi LR, Schulam PG, Bender JS, Magnuson TH et al (1997) Comparison of laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy versus the standard open approach. Transplant Proc 29:138–139

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Chin EH, Hazzan D, Herron DM, Gaetano JN et al (2007) Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy—intraoperative safety, immediate morbidity and delayed complications with 500 cases. Surg Endosc 21:521–526

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Sundaram CP, Martin GL, Guise A, Bernie J et al (2007) Complications after a 5-year experience with laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: the Indiana University Experience. Surg Endosc 21:724–728

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Duchene DA, Johnson DB, Li S, Roden JS et al (2003) Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy at a low volume living donor transplant center: successful outcomes can be expected. J Urol 170:731–733

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Dalla Valle R, Mazzoni MP, Capocasale E, Bisi N et al (2006) Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: short learning curve. Transplant Proc 38:1001–1733

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Flowers JL, Jacobs S, Cho E, Morton A, Rosenberger WF et al (1997) Comparison of open and laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. Ann Surg 226:483–489; discussion 489–490

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ratner LE, Kavoussi LR, Chavin KD, Montgomery R (1998) Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: technical considerations and allograft vascular length. Transplantation 65:1657–1658

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. El-Galley R, Hood N, Young CJ, Deierhoi M, Urban DA (2004) Donor nephrectomy: a comparison of techniques and results of open, hand assisted and full laparoscopic nephrectomy. J Urol 171:40–43

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Su LM, Ratner LE, Montgomery RA, Jarrett TW, Trock BJ et al (2004) Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: trends in donor and recipient morbidity following 381 consecutive cases. Ann Surg 240:358–363

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Giessing M, Deger S, Ebeling V, Roigas J, Turk I et al (2003) Laparoscopic transperitoneal donor nephrectomy. Technique and results. Urologe A 42:218–224

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kuo P, Johnson LB (2000) Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy increases the supply of living donor kidneys: a center-specific microeconomic analysis. Transplantation 69:2211–2213

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kok NF, Lind MY, Hansson BM, Pilzecker D, Mertens zur Borg IR et al (2006) Comparison of laparoscopic and mini incision open donor nephrectomy: single blind, randomised controlled clinical trial. Br Med J 333:221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Baron PW, Baldwin DD, Hadley HR, Ojogho ON, Ruckle HC et al (2004) Hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is safe and results in increased kidney donation. Am Surg 70:901–905

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Buell JF, Hanaway MJ, Potter SR, Cronin DC, Yoshida A et al (2002) Hand-assisted laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy as an alternative to traditional laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy. Am J Transplant 2:983–988

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lai IR, Tsai MK, Lee PH (2004) Hand-assisted versus total laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. J Formos Med Assoc 103:749–753

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Rassweiler JJ, Wiesel M, Carl S, Drehmer I, Jurgowski W et al (2001) Laparoscopic liver donor nephrectomy. Personal experiences and review of the literature. Urologe A40:485–492

    Google Scholar 

  22. Lewis GR, Brook NR, Waller JR, Bains JC, Veitch PS et al (2004) A comparison of traditional open, minimal-incision donor nephrectomy and laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Transpl Int 17:589–595

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Tan HP, Shapiro R, Montgomery RA, Ratner LE (2006) Proposed live donor nephrectomy complication classification scheme. Transplantation 81:1221–1223

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications. A new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Nanidis TG, Antcliffe D, Kokkinos C et al (2008) Laparoscopic versus open live donor nephrectomy in renal transplantation: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg 247:58–70

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department for Visceral, Vascular and Transplantation Surgery, Clinic Cologne-Merheim, Cologne , Germany

    S. Saad & A. Tarabichi

  2. Department of General and Transplantation Surgery, University Essen, Cologne, Germany

    A. Paul & J. Treckmann

  3. Institute of Experimental Medicine, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany

    M. Nagelschmidt

  4. Department of Internal Medicine I, Clinic Cologne-Merheim, Cologne, Germany

    W. Arns

Authors
  1. S. Saad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Paul
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. Treckmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A. Tarabichi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. M. Nagelschmidt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. W. Arns
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Saad.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Saad, S., Paul, A., Treckmann, J. et al. Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: Are ten cases per year enough to reach the quality standards? A report from a single small-volume transplant center. Surg Endosc 24, 594–600 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-009-0642-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-009-0642-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation