Abstract
Despite improvements in minimally invasive techniques over recent decades, kidney implantation into the iliac fossa has remained a domain of open surgery. However, it was hypothesized that it would be feasible to perform robotic transplant kidney implantation as a means of reducing surgical trauma. Two robotic kidney transplantations into the iliac fossa were attempted in human cadavers. In the first cadaver, a 5 cm incision was placed in the right lower abdomen, the peritoneum was mobilized in a cranial direction, the iliac vessels were identified, and the kidney placed in the pre-peritoneal space. The incision was sealed with a gel port through which the Vinci© Surgical System was installed. In the second cadaver, a robotic kidney implantation with robotically sutured vascular and ureteric anastomoses was performed trans-abdominally. Open incision, identification, placement of gel port, and robotic docking were feasible. Robotic performance of vascular anastomosis was not possible in the first cadaver because of advanced decay and excess fat in the surgical field. Robotic kidney positioning was feasible and anastomoses were performed successfully in the second cadaver within 35, 25, and 20 min (arterial, venous, and ureteric, respectively). Robotic kidney transplantation seems feasible in human cadavers if tissue condition is suitable, but is very technically challenging. Because of the delicacy of anatomical structures, the cadaveric model with the risk of advanced decay and the absence of circulation sets limits on the exploration of this complex procedure. Hence, further research and animal work in this area is critical to improve understanding of the benefits and limitations of robotic kidney implantation.
References
Humar A, Matas AJ (2005) Surgical complications after kidney transplantation. Semin Dial 18:505–510
Hernandez D, Rufino M, Armas S, Gonzalez A, Gutierrez P, Barbero P, Vivancos S, Rodriguez C, de Vera JR, Torres A (2006) Retrospective analysis of surgical complications following cadaveric kidney transplantation in the modern transplant era. Nephrol Dial Transplant 21:2908–2915
Flechner SM, Zhou L, Derweesh I, Mastroianni B, Savas K, Goldfarb D, Modlin CS, Krishnamurthi V, Novick A (2003) The impact of sirolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, cyclosporine, azathioprine, and steroids on wound healing in 513 kidney-transplant recipients. Transplantation 76:1729–1734
Goel M, Flechner SM, Zhou L, Mastroianni B, Savas K, Derweesh I, Patel P, Modlin C, Goldfarb D, Novick AC (2004) The influence of various maintenance immunosuppressive drugs on lymphocele formation and treatment after kidney transplantation. J Urol 171:1788–1792
Humar A, Ramcharan T, Denny R, Gillingham KJ, Payne WD, Matas AJ (2001) Are wound complications after a kidney transplant more common with modern immunosuppression? Transplantation 72:1920–1923
Hernandez D, Rufino M, Bartolomei S, Gonzalez-Rinne A, Lorenzo V, Cobo M, Torres A (2005) Clinical impact of preexisting vascular calcifications on mortality after renal transplantation. Kidney Int 67:2015–2020
Hagen ME, Inan I, Pugin F, Morel P (2007) The da Vinci surgical system in digestive surgery. Rev Med Suisse 3:1622–1626
Hagen ME, Wagner OJ, Inan I, Morel P (2009) Impact of IQ, computer-gaming skills, general dexterity, and laparoscopic experience on performance with the da Vinci® surgical system. Int J Med Robot 5(3):327–331
Horgan S, Vanuno D (2001) Robots in laparoscopic surgery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 11:415–419
Sanchez BR, Mohr CJ, Morton JM, Safadi BY, Alami RS, Curet MJ (2005) Comparison of totally robotic laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and traditional laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Surg Obes Relat Dis 1:549–554
Giulianotti P, Gorodner V, Sbrana F, Tzvetanov I, Jeon H, Bianco F, Kinzer K, Oberholzer J, Benedetti E (2010) Robotic transabdominal kidney transplantation in a morbidly obese patient. Am J Transplant 10:1478–1482
Canes D, Berger A, Aron M, Brandina R, Goldfarb DA, Shoskes D, Desai MM, Gill IS (2009) Laparo-endoscopic single site (LESS) versus standard laparoscopic left donor nephrectomy: matched-pair comparison. Eur Urol 57:95–101 Epub 28 Jul 2009
Ganpule AP, Dhawan DR, Kurien A, Sabnis RB, Mishra SK, Muthu V, Desai MR (2009) Laparoendoscopic single-site donor nephrectomy: a single-center experience. Urology 74:1238–1240
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
Draaisma WA, Ruurda JP, Scheffer RC, Simmermacher RK, Gooszen HG, Rijnhart-de Jong HG, Buskens E, Broeders IA (2006) Randomized clinical trial of standard laparoscopic versus robot-assisted laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Br J Surg 93:1351–1359
Breitenstein S, Nocito A, Puhan M, Held U, Weber M, Clavien PA (2008) Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: outcome and cost analyses of a case-matched control study. Ann Surg 247:987–993
Horgan S, Vanuno D, Benedetti E (2002) Early experience with robotically assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 12:64–70
Conflict of interest
No conflict of interest.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hagen, M.E., Pugin, F., Bucher, P. et al. Robotic kidney implantation for kidney transplantation: initial experience. J Robotic Surg 4, 271–276 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-010-0221-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-010-0221-z