Advertisement

Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 32, Issue 6, pp 2793–2799 | Cite as

Transition from laparoscopic to retroperitoneoscopic approach for live donor nephrectomy

  • Zi Qin Ng
  • Gabrielle Musk
  • Alethea Rea
  • Bulang He
Article

Abstract

Background

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy has become the standard of care due to multiple benefits. Currently, there are various techniques employed with two different approaches: transperitoneal (TLDN) or retroperitoneoscopic (RLDN) approach. There is a lack of data to determine which technique is superior, although the RLDN offers an anatomical advantage by avoidance of manipulation of the intraperitoneal organs. The aims of this study were to explore the merits of RLDN to TLDN and assess the learning curve of transition from TLDN to RLDN.

Methods

From January 2010 to February 2017, 106 live donor nephrectomies were performed: 56 by TLDN and 50 by RLDN. Data on patient demographics, perioperative parameters, analgesic consumption, pain scores, and kidney graft function were collected and analysed. Data were compared with a Student’s t test or Mann–Whitney test. A CUSUM analysis was performed to investigate the learning curve.

Results

All live donor nephrectomies were successful with no conversion to open surgery. There was no blood transfusion, readmission, or mortality. No postoperative complications were graded over Clavien II. Kidney function was comparable in both groups. The follow-up period ranged from 3 to 78 months.

Conclusion

Retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy is a safe approach with comparable results to TLDN. RLDN has an anatomical advantage as it avoids manipulating the intraperitoneal organs and retains a virgin abdomen and hence translates to a lower perioperative complication risk.

Keywords

Live donor Donor nephrectomy Retroperitoneoscopic Transperitoneal Complication Learning curve 

Abbreviations

RLDN

Retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy

TLDN

Transperitoneal live donor nephrectomy

LDN

Live donor nephrectomy

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all their colleagues involved in the care of our donors and recipients and the theatre staff for their contribution.

Compliance with ethical standards

Disclosure

Dr Zi Qin Ng, Dr Gabrielle Musk, Dr Bulang He, and Alethea Rea have no conflicts of interest of financial ties to disclose.

References

  1. 1.
    Tooher RL, Rao MM, Scott DF, Wall DR, Francis DM, Bridgewater FH et al (2004) A systematic review of laparoscopic live-donor nephrectomy. Transplantation 78(3):404–414CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Serrano OK, Kirchner V, Bangdiwala A, Vock DM, Dunn TB, Finger EB et al (2016) Evolution of living donor nephrectomy at a single center: long-term outcomes with 4 different techniques in greater than 4000 donors over 50 years. Transplantation 100(6):1299–1305CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rajab A, Pelletier RP (2015) The safety of hand-assisted laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy: the Ohio State University experience with 1500 cases. Clin Transplant 29(3):204–210CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Treat EG, Schulam PG, Gritsch HA, Liu CH, Xiong S, Passos F et al (2015) Evolution of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy technique and outcomes: a single-center experience with more than 1300 cases. Urology 85(1):107–112CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cooper M, Kramer A, Nogueira JM, Phelan M (2013) Recipient outcomes of dual and multiple renal arteries following 1000 consecutive laparoscopic donor nephrectomies at a single institution. Clin Transplant 27(2):261–266CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lentine KL, Lam NN, Axelrod D, Schnitzler MA, Garg AX, Xiao H et al. (2016) Perioperative complications after living kidney donation: a national study. Am J Transplant 16:1848–1957CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Leventhal JR, Paunescu S, Baker TB, Caciedo JC, Skaro A, Kocak B et al (2010) A decade of minimally invasive donation: experience with more than 1200 laparoscopic donor nephrectomies at a single institution. Clin Transplant 24(2):169–174CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    He B, Bremner A, Han Y, Hamdorf JM (2016) Determining the superior technique for living-donor nephrectomy: the laparoscopic intraperitoneal versus the retroperitoneoscopic approach. Exp Clin Transplant 14(2):129–138PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ozdemir-van Brunschot DM, Koning GG, van Laarhoven KC, Ergun M, van Horne SB, Rovers MM et al (2015) A comparison of technique modifications in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 10(3):e0121131CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    He B, Mitchell A, Delriviere L, Shannon T, Pemberton R, Tan A et al (2011) Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. ANZ J Surg 81(3):159–163CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Simforoosh N, Bassiri A, Ziaee SA, Tabibi A, Salim NS, Pourrezagholi F et al (2003) Laparoscopic versus open live donor nephrectomy: the first randomized clinical trial. Transplant Proc 35(7):2553–2554CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kashiwadate T, Tokodai K, Amada N, Haga I, Takayama T, Nakamura A et al (2015) Right versus left retroperitoneoscopic living-donor nephrectomy. Int Urol Nephrol 47(7):1117–1121CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ruszat R, Sulser T, Dickenmann M, Wolff T, Gurke L, Eugster T et al (2006) Retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy: donor outcome and complication rate in comparison with three different techniques. World J Urol 24(1):113–117CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tanabe K, Miyamoto N, Ishida H, Tokumoto T, Shirakawa H, Yamamoto H et al. (2005) Retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy (RPLDN): establishment and initial experience of RPLDN at a single center. Am J Transplant 5(4 Pt 1):739–745CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Simforoosh N, Soltani MH, Basiri A, Tabibi A, Gooran S, Sharifi SH et al (2014) Evolution of laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: a single-center experience with 1510 cases over 14 years. J Endourol 28(1):34–39CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chin EH, Hazzan D, Herron DM, Gaetano JN, Ames SA, Bromberg JS et al (2007) Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: intraoperative safety, immediate morbidity, and delayed complications with 500 cases. Surg Endosc 21(4):521–526CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Oyen O, Andersen M, Mathisen L, Kvarstein G, Edwin B, Line PD et al (2005) Laparoscopic versus open living-donor nephrectomy: experiences from a prospective, randomized, single-center study focusing on donor safety. Transplantation 79(9):1236–1240CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jacobs SC, Cho E, Foster C, Liao P, Bartlett ST (2004) Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: the University of Maryland 6-year experience. J Urol 171(1):47–51CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kohei N, Kazuya O, Hirai T, Miyauchi Y, Iida S, Shirakawa H et al (2010) Retroperitoneoscopic living donor nephrectomy: experience of 425 cases at a single center. J Endourol 24(11):1783–1787CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bachmann A, Wolff T, Giannini O, Dickenman M, Ruszat R, Gurke L et al (2006) How painful is donor nephrectomy? Retrospective analysis of early pain and pain management in open versus laparoscopic versus retroperitoneoscopic nephrectomy. Transplantation 81(12):1735–1738CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bachmann A, Giannini O, Wolff T, Dickenmann M, Ruszat R, Langer I et al (2005) Retroperitoneoscopic living donor nephrectomy: a comparison with the open approach in respect of early postoperative pain management. Transplant Proc 37(2):609–612CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dols LF, Kok NF, d’Ancona FC, Klop KW, Tran TC, Langenhuijsen JF et al (2014) Randomized controlled trial comparing hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic versus standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Transplantation 97(2):161–167CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wadstrom J (2016) The higher rates of ileus, readmission and hernia after laparoscopic donor nephrectomy reported can be mitigated by using a retroperitoneal approach via a pfannenstiel incision. Transplantation 100:e104CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wadstrom J, Biglarnia A, Gjertsen H, Sugitani A, Fronek J (2011) Introducing hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy: learning curves and development based on 413 consecutive cases in four centers. Transplantation 91(4):462–469PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Modi P, Pal B, Modi J, Singla S, Patel C, Patel R et al (2013) Retroperitoneoscopic living-donor nephrectomy and laparoscopic kidney transplantation: experience of initial 72 cases. Transplantation 95(1):100–105CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sundqvist P, Feuk U, Haggman M, Persson AE, Stridsberg M, Wadstrom J (2004) Hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy in comparison to open and laparoscopic procedures: a prospective study on donor morbidity and kidney function. Transplantation 78(1):147–153CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Troppmann C, Daily MF, McVicar JP, Troppmann KM, Perez RV (2010) The transition from laparoscopic to retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy: a matched pair pilot study. Transplantation 89(7):858–863CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ma L, Li G, Huang Y, Hou X, Zhao L, Wang G et al (2011) Retroperitoneoscopic live-donor right nephrectomy: a Chinese single center. Exp Clin Transplant 9(1):20–25PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ng CS, Abreu SC, Abou El-Fettouh HI, Kaouk JH, Desai MM, Goldfarb DA et al (2004) Right retroperitoneal versus left transperitoneal laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. Urology 63(5):857–861CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yashi M, Yagisawa T, Ishikawa N, Nukui A, Fujiwara T, Sakuma Y (2007) Retroperitoneoscopic hand-assisted live-donor nephrectomy according to the basic principle of transplantation in donor kidney selection. J Endourol 21(6):589–594CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.WA Liver and Kidney Transplant ServiceSir Charles Gairdner HospitalPerthAustralia
  2. 2.Animal Care ServicesUniversity of Western AustraliaPerthAustralia
  3. 3.Centre for Applied StatisticsUniversity of Western AustraliaPerthAustralia
  4. 4.School of SurgeryUniversity of Western AustraliaPerthAustralia
  5. 5.WA Liver and Kidney Transplant ServiceSir Charles Gairdner HospitalNedlandsAustralia

Personalised recommendations