UROLOGY - TRANSPLANTATION

 

Hand-assisted laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy - initial experience

 

 

J. Loveland^I; D. Liakos^II; C. Joseph^III; J. R. Botha^IV; R. Britz^V

^IM.B. B.Ch., F.C.S. (S.A.), Cert. Paed. Surg.;Transplant Unit, University of the Witwatersrand and Donald Gordon Medical Centre, Johannesburg
^IIB.SC., M.B. Ch.B.;Transplant Unit, University of the Witwatersrand and Donald Gordon Medical Centre, Johannesburg
^IIIM.B. B.Ch., D.A. (S.A.), F.C.S. (s.A.), Cert. Gastroenterol.Transplant Unit, University of the Witwatersrand and Donald Gordon Medical Centre, Johannesburg
^IVM.B. Ch.B., F.C.S. (S.A.)Transplant Unit, University of the Witwatersrand and Donald Gordon Medical Centre, Johannesburg
^VD.A. (S.A.), F.C.S. (S.A.)Transplant Unit, University of the Witwatersrand and Donald Gordon Medical Centre, Johannesburg

 

 

---

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The advantages of minimally invasive live donor nephrectomy have been well documented, with no adverse effect on graft function. Minimal access nephrectomy has now become the standard of care in many units. We have adopted the hand-assisted laparoscopic live donor (HALLDN) technique, and present our initial experience with the first 24 cases.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: HALLDNs were performed trans-peritoneally. Primary outcomes included total operative time, warm ischaemic time, time to discharge, and postoperative complications. Warm ischaemic time was measured from the time of clamping the renal artery to the time of perfusing the kidney on the back table.
RESULTS: Mean total operative time was 143 minutes and mean warm ischaemic time 188 seconds. A downward trend was displayed for operative times. Mean time to discharge was 60 hours. A right nephrectomy was performed in 2 cases. No surgical morbidity is reported. We describe one donor mortality.
DISCUSSION: Our results compare favourably with those documented in the literature. Aberrant renal vascular anatomy had no adverse effect on operative or warm ischaemic times. HALLDN proved beneficial in patients with a high BMI.
CONCLUSION: Surgical experience is vital when performing HALLDN. Overcoming the learning curve with an animal model is beneficial.

---

 

“Full text available only in PDF format”

 

REFERENCES

1. Wolf JS, Merion RM, Leichtman AB, et al. Randomized controlled trial of hand-assisted laparoscopic versus open surgical live donor nephrectomy. Transplantation 2001;72:284-290.         [ Links ]

2. Ratner LE, Kavoussi, Schulam PG, et al. Comparison of laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy versus the standard open approach. Transplant Proc 1997;29:138-139.         [ Links ]

3. Schweitzer EJ, Wilson J, Jacobs S, et al. Increased rates of donation with laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Ann Surg 2000;232:392-400.         [ Links ]

4. Greco F, Hoda, MR, Alcaraz A, Bachmann A, Hakenburg OW, Fornara P. Laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy: Analysis of the existing literature. EurUro 2010;58:498-509.         [ Links ]

5. Martin GL, Guise AI, Bernie JE, et al. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: effects of learning curve on surgical outcomes. Transplant Proc 2007;39:27-29.         [ Links ]

6. Loveland J, Joseph C, Liakos D, Botha JR, Britz R. Overcoming the learning curve in hand-assisted laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy - a study in the animal model. S Afr J Surg 2011; in press.         [ Links ]

7. Kokkinos C, Nanidis TG, Antcliffe D, Darzi AW, Tekkis P, Papalois V. Comparison of laparoscopic versus hand-assisted live donor nephrectomy. Transplantation 2007;83:41-47.         [ Links ]

8. Velidedeoglou E, Williams N, Brayman KL, et al. Comparison of open, laparoscopic and hand-assisted live donor nephrectomies. Transplantation 2002;74:169.         [ Links ]

9. Bargman V, Sundaram CP, Bernie J, Goggins W. Randomized trial of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy with and without hand assistance. J Endourol 2006;20:717-722.         [ Links ]

10. Greco F, Hamza A, Wagner S, et al. Hand-assisted laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy versus open surgery: Evaluation of surgical trauma and late graft function in 82 patients. Transplant Proc 2009;41:4039-4043.         [ Links ]

11. Lee K, Hong JH, Jeon SS, Choi HY, Kim SJ, Lee SW. Comparison of graft survival in live donor nephrectomy: Hand-assisted laparoscopic v open procedures. J Endourol 2007;21:866-871.         [ Links ]

12. Leventhal JR, Paunescu S, Baker TB, et al. A decade of minimally invasive donation: Experience with more than 1200 laparoscopic donor nephrectomies at a single institution. Clin Transplant 2010;24:169-174.         [ Links ]

13. Wadström J. Hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy: Experience from the first 75 consecutive cases. Clin Transplant 2005;80:1060-1065.         [ Links ]

14. Minnee RC, Bemelman WA, Donselaar-van der Pant KAMI, et al. Risk factors for delayed graft function after hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Transplant Proc 2010;42:2422-2426.         [ Links ]

15. Mandal AK, Cohen C, Montgomery JS, Johnston WK, Wolf JS. 200 consecutive hand assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomies: Evolution of operative technique and outcomes. J Urol 2006;175:1439-1443.         [ Links ]