Abstract
Objective
We aim to analyze the trends in donor nephrectomy (DN) across three surgical disciplines—urology, general surgery, and transplant surgery, specifically to analyze the surgical techniques and perioperative outcomes.
Materials and methods
We reviewed all live DN reported in the Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System database of New York State (NYS) from 1995 to 2015. Surgeons were grouped in their respective disciplines using their state license number and the American Medical Association masterfile. We analyzed the volume of DN performed by each group along with how the surgical approach is, such as open, laparoscopic or robotic. Perioperative outcomes assessed were length of stay (LOS), 30-day and 90-day readmission rates, and complication rates
Results
A total of 6803 DN were performed with urologists, transplant surgeons and general surgeons accounting for 42%, 29%, and 29% of them, respectively. Urologists performed a higher case volume with a mean surgical volume of 17.4 ± 6.5 per year (p < 0.0001). During the study period, case volumes for urologists and transplant surgeons trended upward, while those for general surgeons trended downward. Urologists also utilized a minimally invasive surgery (MIS) such as laparoscopy or robotic approach in a higher percentage of their cases (p < 0.0001). Regarding perioperative outcomes, general surgeons had a higher mean LOS (p < 0.0001), while transplant surgeons had higher rates of 30-day and 90-day readmission rates (p < 0.0001). There were no statistically significant differences in complication rates following DN among the groups.
Conclusion
Urologists remain vital members of the renal transplantation team as they perform a majority of DN in NYS and are increasingly achieving them via an MIS approach when compared to their general and transplant surgery counterparts. Perioperative outcomes are similar amongst all disciplines; however, general surgeons have higher mean LOS, while transplant surgeons have higher readmission rates.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Gupta N, Raina P, Kumar A (2005) Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. J Minim Access Surg 1(4):155–164
Novick AC, Flechner S (1988) The integration of clinical renal transplantation into urology residency training. J Urol 139(3):568–569
Navarrete RV (1998) Re: the current level of involvement of urological trainees and faculty in clinical kidney transplantation in the United States and Canada. J Urol 159(2):513
Mcgregor T, Bjazevic J, Patel P, Koulack J (2016) Changing of the guard? A glance at the surgical representation in the Canadian renal transplantation community. Can Urol Assoc J 10(1–2):E7–E11
Yuan H, Liu L, Zheng S et al (2013) The safety and efficacy of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy for renal transplantation: an updated meta-analysis. Transplant Proc 45(1):65–76
Li J, Wang G, Zhu T, Sun L, Xu M, Rong R (2008) Hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a comparative study with conventional open donor nephrectomy in a single Chinese center. Transplant Proc 40(10):3362–3364
Leventhal JR, Deeik RK, Joehl RJ et al (2000) Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy—is it safe? Transplantation 70(4):602–606
Mansour AM, El-Nahas AR, Ali-El-Dein B et al (2017) Enhanced recovery open vs laparoscopic left donor nephrectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Urology 110:98–103
Yang A, Barman N, Chin E et al (2018) Robotic-assisted vs. laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a retrospective comparison of perioperative course and postoperative outcome after 1 year. J Robot Surg 12(2):343–350
Cohen AJ, Williams DS, Bohorquez H et al (2015) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: decreasing length of stay. Ochsner J 15(1):19–24
Laplace B, Ladriere M, Claudon M, Eschwege P, Kessler M, Hubert J (2014) Robotic assisted laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy: preoperative assessment and results of 100 cases. Prog Urol 24(5):288–293
Chung E, Grant AB, Hibberd AD, Sprott P (2007) Why potential live renal donors prefer laparoscopic nephrectomy: a survey of live donor attitudes. BJU Int 100(6):1344–1346
Choi SW, Kim KS, Kim S et al (2014) Hand-assisted and pure laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy: a matched-cohort comparison over 10 yr at a single institute. Clin Transplant 28(11):1287–1293
Friedersdorff F, Werthemann P, Cash H et al (2013) Outcomes after laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy: comparison of two laparoscopic surgeons with different levels of expertise. BJU Int 111(1):95–100
Bhattu AS, Ganpule A, Sabnis RB, Murali V, Mishra S, Desai M (2015) Robot-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy vs standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a prospective randomized comparative study. J Endourol 29(12):1334–1340
Tsoulfas G, Agorastou P, Ko DS et al (2017) Laparoscopic vs open donor nephrectomy: lessons learnt from single academic center experience. World J Nephrol 6(1):45–52
Funding
None.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
OOO—protocol/project development, data collection or management, data analysis. ND—protocol/project development. MS—data analysis. NT—data analysis, revisions. MP—protocol/project development, data collection or management.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interest.
Research involving human participants and/or animals
Human.
Informed consent
N/A (retrospective).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Omidele, O.O., Davoudzadeh, N., Shah, M. et al. Trends in utilization and perioperative outcomes in live donor nephrectomies: a multi-surgical discipline analysis. World J Urol 37, 2225–2230 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2559-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2559-1