Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A comparison of laparoendoscopic single-site surgery versus conventional procedures for laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a Japanese multi-institutional retrospective study

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Laparoendoscopic single-site donor nephrectomy (LESSDN) is a feasible and effective procedure because of its non-invasiveness and better cosmetic outcomes. However, there have been few multi-institutional studies conducted by multiple surgeons on LESSDN. We retrospectively compared the clinical data and outcomes between LESSDN and conventional laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) at multiple institutes in Japan.

Materials and methods

From 2009 to 2015, the clinical data of 223 donors who underwent LESSDN and 151 donors who underwent LDN were collected from 10 institutes. All LESSDNs were performed transperitoneally, whereas LDNs were performed transperitoneally (P-LDN) in 75 patients and retroperitoneally (R-LDN) in 76 patients.

Results

In the LESSDN group, the single-incision site was pararectal in 155 (69.5%) patients and umbilical in 65 (29.1%) patients. Multiple surgeons (one to eight per institute) performed the LESSDN. No significant differences were observed between the three groups regarding estimated blood loss and warm ischemic time. The operative time was significantly shorter in the LESSDN group than in the R-LDN group (p = 0.018). No significant differences were observed regarding the rates of blood transfusion, open conversion, visceral injuries, and postoperative complications. Furthermore, no significant differences were observed regarding the dose of analgesic and the rate of delayed graft function. One patient required open conversion due to injury to the renal artery. Selection of LESS procedure was not an independent risk factor for the median serum creatinine level of above 1.27 mg/dL in recipients at 1 year after kidney transplantation.

Conclusion

The results showed the technical feasibility of LESSDN compared with the standard LDNs in a multi-institutional and multi-surgeon setting. A few observed non-negligible complications and the significantly higher levels of serum creatinine in patients who underwent LESSDN indicate that this procedure should be employed cautiously when performed by surgeons without ample experience in performing LESS procedures.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ratner LE, Ciseck LJ, Moore RG, Cigarroa FG, Kaufman HS, Kavoussi LR (1995) Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. Transplantation 15:1047–1049

    Google Scholar 

  2. Japanese Society for Clinical Renal Transplantation and The Japan Society for Transplantation (2017) Annual progress report from the Japanese Renal Transplant Registry: number of renal transplantations in 2016 and follow-up survey. Ishoku 52:113–133

    Google Scholar 

  3. Autorino R, Brandao LF, Sankari B, Zargar H, Laydner H, Akça O, De Sio M, Mirone V, Chueh SC, Kaouk JH (2015) Laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) vs laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJU Int 115:206–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Tracy CR, Raman JD, Cadeddu JA, Rane A (2008) Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery in urology: where have we been and where are we heading? Nat Clin Pract Urol 5:561–568

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Gill IS, Canes D, Aron M, Haber GP, Goldfarb DA, Flechner S, Desai MR, Kaouk JH, Desai MM (2008) Single port transumbilical (E-NOTES) donor nephrectomy. J Urol 180:637–641

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Canes D, Berger A, Aron M, Brandina R, Goldfarb DA, Shoskes D, Desai MM, Gill IS (2010) Laparo-endoscopic single site (LESS) versus standard laparoscopic left donor nephrectomy: matched-pair comparison. Eur Urol 57:95–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Afaneh C, Aull MJ, Gimenez E, Wang G, Charlton M, Leeser DB, Kapur S, Del Pizzo JJ (2011) Comparison of laparoendoscopic single-site donor nephrectomy and conventional laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: donor and recipient outcomes. Urology 78:1332–1337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Wang GJ, Afaneh C, Aull M, Charlton M, Ramasamy R, Leeser DB, Kapur S, Del Pizzo JJ (2011) Laparoendoscopic single site live donor nephrectomy: single institution report of initial 100 cases. J Urol 186:2333–2337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Aull MJ, Afaneh C, Charlton M, Serur D, Douglas M, Christos PJ, Kapur S, Del Pizzo JJ (2014) A randomized, prospective, parallel group study of laparoscopic versus laparoendoscopic single site donor nephrectomy for kidney donation. Am J Transpl 14:1630–1637

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Inoue T, Tsuchiya N, Narita S, Saito M, Maita S, Numakura K, Obara T, Tsuruta H, Horikawa Y, Satoh S, Habuchi T (2013) Laparoendoscopic single-site plus one trocar donor nephrectomy using the GelPort: initial clinical experience. Urology 81:308–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Inoue T, Tsuchiya N, Narita S, Tsuruta H, Akihama S, Saito M, Satoh S, Habuchi T (2015) Successful introduction of laparoendoscopic single-site donor nephrectomy after experience with laparoscopic single-site plus-one trocar donor nephrectomy. J Endourol 29:435–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Stamatakis L, Mercado MA, Choi JM, Sanchez EJ, Gaber AO, Knight RJ, Mayer WA, Link RE (2013) Comparison of laparoendoscopic single site (LESS) and conventional laparoscopic donor nephrectomy at a single institution. BJU Int 112:198–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Yanishi M, Kinoshita H, Yoshida T, Nakamoto T, Mishima T, Taniguchi H, Yoshida K, Sugi M, Kawa G, Matsuda T (2016) Comparison of cosmesis and body image after laparoendoscopic single-site versus conventional laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Transpl Proc 48:729–733

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Matsuda T, Kanayama H, Ono Y, Kawauchi A, Mizoguchi H, Nakagawa K, Iwamura M, Shigeta M, Habuchi T, Terachi T, Referee Committee of the Endoscopic Surgical Skill Qualification System in Urological Laparoscopy (2014) Reliability of laparoscopic skills assessment on video: 8-year results of the endoscopic surgical skill qualification system in Japan. J Endourol 28:1374–1378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 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  Google Scholar 

  16. Gupta A, Ahmed K, Kynaston HG, Dasgupta P, Chlosta PL, Aboumarzouk OM (2016) Laparoendoscopic single-site donor nephrectomy (LESS-DN) versus standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 27

  17. Richstone L, Rais-Bahrami S, Waingankar N, Hillelsohn JH, Andonian S, Schwartz MJ, Kavoussi LR (2013) Pfannenstiel laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) vs conventional multiport laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: a prospective randomized controlled trial. BJU Int 112:616–622

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Barth RN, Phelan MW, Goldschen L, Munivenkatappa RB, Jacobs SC, Bartlett ST, Philosophe B (2013) Single-port donor nephrectomy provides improved patient satisfaction and equivalent outcomes. Ann Surg 257:527–533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ng ZQ, Musk G, Rea A, He B (2018) Transition from laparoscopic to retroperitoneoscopic approach for live donor nephrectomy. Surg Endosc 32:2793–2799

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Akita University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-1-1, Hondo, Akita, 010-8543, Japan

    Takamitsu Inoue & Tomonori Habuchi

  2. Department of Urology, Sapporo Hokuyu Hospital, Sapporo, Japan

    Masayoshi Miura

  3. Department of Urology and Andrology, Kansai Medical University, Hirakata, Japan

    Masaaki Yanishi & Tadashi Matsuda

  4. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery Related, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe, Japan

    Junya Furukawa & Masato Fujisawa

  5. Department of Urology, Oita University Faculty of Medicine, Oita, Japan

    Fuminori Sato & Hiromitsu Mimata

  6. Beppu Bay Urology Hospital, Beppu, Japan

    Fuminori Sato & Toshiro Terachi

  7. Department of Urology, Tokai University School of Medicine, Isehara, Japan

    Masahiro Nitta, Akira Miyajima & Toshiro Terachi

  8. Department of Urology, Shizuoka General Hospital, Shizuoka, Japan

    Koji Yoshimura

  9. Department of Urology, Tokyo Dental College Ichikawa General Hospital, Ichikawa, Japan

    Jun Hagiuda & Ken Nakagawa

  10. Department of Urology, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan

    Kazunobu Shinoda, Akira Miyajima, Ken Nakagawa & Mototsugu Oya

  11. Department of Urology, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan

    Takashi Kobayashi & Osamu Ogawa

  12. Department of Urology, Tokushima University Graduate School of Medicine, Tokushima, Japan

    Hiro-omi Kanayama

Authors
  1. Takamitsu Inoue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Masayoshi Miura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Masaaki Yanishi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Junya Furukawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Fuminori Sato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Masahiro Nitta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Koji Yoshimura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Jun Hagiuda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Kazunobu Shinoda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Takashi Kobayashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Akira Miyajima
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Ken Nakagawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Mototsugu Oya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Osamu Ogawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Hiromitsu Mimata
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Hiro-omi Kanayama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Masato Fujisawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Toshiro Terachi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  19. Tadashi Matsuda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  20. Tomonori Habuchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Consortia

LESS and RPS Research Group in Japanese Society of Endourology

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tomonori Habuchi.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

Takamitsu Inoue, Masayoshi Miura, Masaaki Yanishi, Jyunya Furukawa, Fuminori Sato, Masahiro Nitta, Koji Yoshimura, Jun Hagiuda, Kazunobu Shinoda, Takashi Kobayashi, Akira Miyajima, Ken Nakagawa, Mototsugu Oya, Osamu Ogawa, Hiromitsu Mimata, Hiro-omi Kanayama, Masato Fujisawa, Toshiro Terachi, Tadashi Matsuda, and Tomonori Habuchi have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 13 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Inoue, T., Miura, M., Yanishi, M. et al. A comparison of laparoendoscopic single-site surgery versus conventional procedures for laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a Japanese multi-institutional retrospective study. Surg Endosc 34, 3424–3434 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-07119-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-07119-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation