Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Robotic kidney implantation for kidney transplantation: initial experience

  • Case Report
  • Published:
Journal of Robotic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

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

References

  1. Humar A, Matas AJ (2005) Surgical complications after kidney transplantation. Semin Dial 18:505–510

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hagen ME, Inan I, Pugin F, Morel P (2007) The da Vinci surgical system in digestive surgery. Rev Med Suisse 3:1622–1626

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Horgan S, Vanuno D (2001) Robots in laparoscopic surgery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 11:415–419

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 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

    Google Scholar 

  13. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 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  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Horgan S, Vanuno D, Benedetti E (2002) Early experience with robotically assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 12:64–70

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

No conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Monika E. Hagen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-010-0221-z

Keywords

Navigation