Eugene Cho

Comparison of open and laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy

OBJECTIVE This study compares an initial group of patients undergoing laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy to a group of patients undergoing open donor nephrectomy to assess the efficacy, morbidity, and patient recovery after the laparoscopic technique. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA Recent data have shown the technical feasibility of harvesting live renal allografts using a laparoscopic approach. However, comparison of donor recovery, morbidity, and short-term graft function to open donor nephrectomy has not been performed previously. METHODS An initial series of patients undergoing laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy were compared to historic control subjects undergoing open donor nephrectomy. The groups were matched for age, gender, race, and comorbidity. Graft function, intraoperative variables, and clinical outcome of the two groups were compared. RESULTS Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy was attempted in 70 patients and completed successfully in 94% of cases. Graft survival was 97% versus 98% (p = 0.6191), and immediate graft function occurred in 97% versus 100% in the laparoscopic and open groups, respectively (p = 0.4961). Blood loss, length of stay, parenteral narcotic requirements, resumption of diet, and return to normal activity were significantly less in the laparoscopic group. Mean warm ischemia time was 3 minutes after laparoscopic harvest. Morbidity was 14% in the laparoscopic group and 35% in the open group. There was no mortality in either group. CONCLUSIONS Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy can be performed with morbidity and mortality comparable to open donor nephrectomy, with substantial improvements in patient recovery after the laparoscopic approach. Initial graft survival and function rates are equal to those of open donor nephrectomy, but longer follow-up is necessary to confirm these observations.

A comparison of recipient renal outcomes with laparoscopic versus open live donor nephrectomy.

Background. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (laparoNx) has the potential to increase living kidney donation rates by reducing the pain and suffering of the donor. However, renal function outcomes of a large series of recipients of laparoNx have not been studied. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed the records of 132 recipients of laparoNx done at our center between 3/96 and 11/97 and compared them to 99 recipients of kidneys procured by the open technique (openNx) done between 10/93 and 3/96. Results. Significantly more patients in the laparoNx group (25.2%) were taking tacrolimus within the first month than those in the openNx group (2.1%). Mean serum creatinine was higher in laparoNx compared with openNx at 1 week (2.860.3 and 1.860.2 mg/dl, respectively; P50.005) and at 1 month (2.060.1 and 1.660.1 mg/dl, P50.05) after transplant. However, by 3 and 6 months, the mean serum creatinine was similar in the two groups (1.760.1 versus 1.560.05 mg/dl, and 1.760.1 versus 1.760.1, respectively). By 1 year posttransplant, the mean serum creatinine for laparoNx was actually less than that for openNx (1.460.1 and 1.760.1 mg/dl, P50.03). Although patients in the laparoNx compared to the openNx group were more likely to have delayed graft function (7.6 versus 2.0%) and ureteral complications (4.5 versus 1.0%), the rate of other complications, as well as hospital length of stay, patient and graft survival rates were similar in the two groups. Conclusion. Although laparoNx allografts have slower initial function compared with openNx, there was no significant difference in longer term renal function. Kidney transplantation is considered to be the treatment of choice for end-stage renal failure. Insufficient supply of organs for donation has produced long waiting times for many patients who may benefit from transplantation (1). During this period patients accumulate the morbidity of renal failure, they must endure the lifestyle limitations of dialysis, and they often die while waiting for the organ sharing system to grant them this resource. Live donor renal transplantation represents a large potential supply of organs that may relieve much of this shortage. Additionally, recipients of live renal transplants may reap benefits of improved patient and allograft survival that have been clearly demonstrated in this population (2,3). Although unilateral nephrectomy has proven to be safe and the solitary kidney state has been found to be well tolerated in a carefully chosen candidate for donation (4,5), substantial disincentives to donation exist. These include a significant hospitalization, prolonged convalescence period with time away from jobs, intractable perioperative pain, and, for some, cosmetic concerns of the resulting

Are concerns over right laparoscopic donor nephrectomy unwarranted

ObjectiveTo examine the ability of several large, experienced transplantation centers to perform right-sided laparoscopic donor nephrectomy safely with equivalent long-term renal allograft function. Summary Background DataEarly reports noted a higher incidence of renal vein thrombosis and eventual graft loss. However, exclusion of right-sided donors would deprive a significant proportion of donors a laparoscopically harvested graft. MethodsA retrospective review was performed among 97 patients from seven centers performing right-sided laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Surgical and postoperative demographic factors were evaluated. Complications were identified and long-term renal allograft function was compared with historical left-sided laparoscopic donor nephrectomy cohorts. ResultsRight laparoscopic donor nephrectomy was performed for varying reasons, including multiple left renal arteries or veins, smaller right kidney, or cystic right renal mass. Mean surgical time was 235.0 ± 66.7 minutes, with a mean blood loss of 139 ± 165.8 mL. Conversion was required in three patients secondary to bleeding or anatomical anomalies. Mean warm ischemic time was limited at 238 ± 112 seconds. Return to diet was achieved on average after 7.5 ± 2.3 hours, with mean discharge at 54.6 ± 22.8 hours. Two grafts were lost during the early experience of these centers to renal vein thrombosis. Both surgical and postoperative complications were limited, with few long-term adverse effects. Mean serum creatinine levels were higher than open and left laparoscopic donor nephrectomy on postoperative day 1, but at all remaining intervals the right laparoscopic donors had equivalent creatinine values. ConclusionsThese results confirm that right laparoscopic donor nephrectomy provides similar patient benefits, including early return to diet and discharge. Long-term creatinine values were no higher than in traditional open donor or left laparoscopic donor cohorts. These results establish that early concerns about high thrombosis rates are not supported by a multiinstitutional review of laparoscopic right donor nephrectomies.

Simultaneous Cadaver Pancreas Living-Donor Kidney Transplantation: A New Approach for the Type 1 Diabetic Uremic Patient

ObjectiveTo review the authors’ experience with a new approach for type I diabetic uremic patients: simultaneous cadaver-donor pancreas and living-donor kidney transplant (SPLK). Summary Background DataSimultaneous cadaver kidney and pancreas transplantation (SPK) and living-donor kidney transplantation alone followed by a solitary cadaver-donor pancreas transplant (PAK) have been the transplant options for type I diabetic uremic patients. SPK pancreas graft survival has historically exceeded that of solitary pancreas transplantation. Recent improvement in solitary pancreas transplant survival rates has narrowed the advantage seen with SPK. PAK, however, requires sequential transplant operations. In contrast to PAK and SPK, SPLK is a single operation that offers the potential benefits of living kidney donation: shorter waiting time, expansion of the organ donor pool, and improved short-term and long-term renal graft function. MethodsBetween May 1998 and September 1999, the authors performed 30 SPLK procedures, coordinating the cadaver pancreas transplant with simultaneous transplantation of a laparoscopically removed living-donor kidney. Of the 30 SPLKs, 28 (93%) were portally and enterically drained. During the same period, the authors also performed 19 primary SPK and 17 primary PAK transplants. ResultsOne-year pancreas, kidney, and patient survival rates were 88%, 95%, and 95% for SPLK recipients. One-year pancreas graft survival rates in SPK and PAK recipients were 84% and 71%. Of 30 SPLK transplants, 29 (97%) had immediate renal graft function, whereas 79% of SPK kidneys had immediate function. Reoperative rates, early readmission to the hospital, and initial length of stay were similar between SPLK and SPK recipients. SPLK recipients had a shorter wait time for transplantation. ConclusionsEarly pancreas, kidney, and patient survival rates after SPLK are similar to those for SPK. Waiting time was significantly shortened. SPLK recipients had lower rates of delayed renal graft function than SPK recipients. Combining cadaver pancreas transplantation with living-donor kidney transplantation does not harm renal graft outcome. Given the advantages of living-donor kidney transplant, SPLK should be considered for all uremic type I diabetic patients with living donors.

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: current role in renal allograft procurement

O donor nephrectomy is relatively safe and produces a high-quality organ for transplantation. However, the morbidity of the flank incision is substantial in terms of pain, long-term structural stability, and cosmesis. If the act of renal donation becomes less traumatic, either real or perceived, perhaps the pool of volunteer renal donors will increase. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy was conceived as an approach to decrease donor morbidity. The absolute requirements for a laparoscopic approach, however, include continued donor safety and equivalent renal allograft function. Debate over these two requirements has been extensive and heated.1–4 This review of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy concentrates on the surgical techniques used, the complications seen in the donor, and the transplant recipient success rates. The first laparoscopic donor nephrectomy was accomplished in 1995.5 Initially, the University of Maryland6 and Johns Hopkins University7,8 developed and modified the surgical technique. As enthusiasm for their initial results spread, most (if not all) surgeons visited the two Maryland programs before initiating programs of their own. The technique spread quickly and, by the end of 1999, more than 1000 laparoscopic donor nephrectomies had been done on five continents.

Impact of upper endoscopic survey during percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement

Background: No consensus exists concerning the utility of a full diagnostic upper endoscopy during percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube placement. We evaluate the effect of a complete survey on identifying and treating unsuspected gastrointestinal pathology. Methods: During a 10-year period (1990-2000), 1,706 patients underwent attempted PEG tube placement by five different surgical endoscopists at one institution. A complete survey of the esophagus, stomach, and proximal duodenum was attempted in all cases. Endoscopic findings and recommendations were recorded in a computerized log and patient charts. Pathology results were obtained from a computerized pathology database and patient charts. Results: Placement of a PEG tube was successful in 97%, and a full survey was possible in 99% of the cases. Pathologic findings were found in 38% of the surveyed patients (esophagus, 7%; stomach, 24%; duodenum, 7%). One group with gastrointestinal polyps or gastric ulcers (5.7%) was identified as possible candidates for endoscopic intervention. In 30% of this group (1.8% of the total) a biopsy was performed, or bleeding was treated endoscopically. In a second group pathology was identified in the duodenum (6.4%) that would not have been recognized without a full survey. These duodenal findings resulted in a recommendation for treatment change in 38% of this group (2.4% of the total). Conclusions: Upper endoscopic survey before PEG tube placement showed a significant amount of unsuspected gastrointestinal pathology. Findings requiring biopsy, immediate treatment, or a change in medical treatment occurred in 4.2% of the cases, and these findings did not prevent PEG tube placement in any patient.

Living donor nephrectomy.

The need for more organs for kidney transplantation is increasing. Cadaver sources for these organs are stable, therefore living donation must increase if the need is to be met. Less perfect kidneys are now being transplanted. The pool of potential donors is being expanded. The process of kidney donation is being made easier in an effort to increase the number of donors. The donor work-up is being streamlined. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy has been introduced, and appears to be promising as a technique of lessening donor pain and suffering, while maintaining excellent graft results.

A Comparison of Recipient Renal Outcomes With Laparoscopic Versus Open Live Donor Nephrectomy

BACKGROUND Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (laparoNx) has the potential to increase living kidney donation rates by reducing the pain and suffering of the donor. However, renal function outcomes of a large series of recipients of laparoNx have not been studied. METHODS We retrospectively reviewed the records of 132 recipients of laparoNx done at our center between 3/96 and 11/97 and compared them to 99 recipients of kidneys procured by the open technique (openNx) done between 10/93 and 3/96. RESULTS Significantly more patients in the laparoNx group (25.2%) were taking tacrolimus within the first month than those in the openNx group (2.1%). Mean serum creatinine was higher in laparoNx compared with openNx at 1 week (2.8+/-0.3 and 1.8+/-0.2 mg/dl, respectively; P=0.005) and at 1 month (2.0+/-0.1 and 1.6+/-0.1 mg/dl, P=0.05) after transplant. However, by 3 and 6 months, the mean serum creatinine was similar in the two groups (1.7+/-0.1 versus 1.5+/-0.05 mg/dl, and 1.7+/-0.1 versus 1.7+/-0.1, respectively). By 1 year posttransplant, the mean serum creatinine for laparoNx was actually less than that for openNx (1.4+/-0.1 and 1.7+/-0.1 mg/dl, P=0.03). Although patients in the laparoNx compared to the openNx group were more likely to have delayed graft function (7.6 versus 2.0%) and ureteral complications (4.5 versus 1.0%), the rate of other complications, as well as hospital length of stay, patient and graft survival rates were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSION Although laparoNx allografts have slower initial function compared with openNx, there was no significant difference in longer term renal function.

4719 Helicobacter pyloriin solid organ transplant patients: is the incidence and association with peptic ulcer disease different from the general population?

Helicobacter pylori(H. pylori) is found in 50% of adults in the U.S.A by the age of 60. Ninety percent of duodenal ulcer and 70-90% of gastric ulcer patients are infected with H. pylori. Little is known about the incidence of H. pylori and its association with peptic ulcer disease in the transplant recipient population. To explore this, we reviewed the endoscopic findings in symptomatic transplant patients undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Between April 1998 and August 1999, 156 kidney and/or pancreas transplant patients underwent 222 upper endoscopes. Indications for endoscopy included nausea, vomiting, dyspepsia, dysphagia, odynophagia, or bleeding. 101/156 patients had gastric biopsy for histology and/or urease test (CLOtest). These patients comprise the basis of this study. Gastritis and/or peptic ulceration was found in 72/101 (71%) patients. 16/101 (16%) had peptic ulcer disease. 10/16 (62%) had duodenal ulcers and 6/16 (38%) had gastric ulcers. H. pylori was detected in 12/101 (12%) patients: eleven patients had a positive CLOtest and one patient had microscopic evidence of H. pylori with a negative CLOtest. 4/12 (33%) patients with H. pylori infection had a grossly normal endoscopic exam. 7/12 (58%) had gastritis and 1/12 (7%) had duodenal ulcers. None of the six patients with gastric ulcer and only 1/10 (10%) patients with duodenal ulcer was found to be infected with H. pylori. H. pylori infection had no correlation with patient symptoms. This study demonstrates an unexpectedly low incidence (12%) of H. pylori infection in our symptomatic transplant recipients when compared to the general population. There is also a low association between H. pylori infection and peptic ulcer disease (1/16 or 6%). Given the frequent use of broad spectrum antibiotics in these patients it is possible that H. pylori is being inadvertently eradicated. This does not explain the relative absence of H. pylori in those transplant patients suffering from peptic ulcer disease.We hypothesize that H. pylori infection may not be as important a factor in peptic ulcer disease of the transplant patient when compared to the general population.