John L. Flowers

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

Laparoscopic versus open donor nephrectomy: comparing ureteral complications in the recipients and improving the laparoscopic technique.

BACKGROUND Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (LDN) is a recently developed procedure, the performance of which needs to be studied. Given the reported advantages in the donors, this study looks at graft outcome and ureteral complications in recipients of kidneys procured by open donor nephrectomy (ODN) versus LDN. METHODS The LDN recipients consisted of 193 patients since 3/27/96. A total of 168 ODN recipients from 1991 to 1998 served as controls. Immunosuppression protocols were similar for both groups. RESULTS Two-year graft survival for LDN and ODN was 98% and 96%, respectively. Two-year patient survival for LDN and ODN was 98% and 97%, respectively. The incidence of delayed graft function and mean serum creatinine at 3 and 12 months was similar in both groups. However, the number of ureteral complications that required operative repair was significantly higher for LDN recipients compared to ODN recipients, 7.7% (n=15) vs. 0.6% (n=1) respectively (P=0.03). Ureteral stenting was required in an additional 3.1% (n=6) of LDN and 2.4% (n=4) of ODN (P=NS). There was, however, a learning curve with time. For the first 130 LDN patients, a total of 20 ureteral complications were recorded, whereas only one occurred in the more recent 63 patients (P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS The higher ureteral complication rate in LDN recipients has improved over time as technical causes have been identified. We have noted significant improvement in ureteral viability by using the endogastrointestinal anastomosis instrument on the ureter and peri-ureteral tissue. LDN is therefore an excellent alternative to ODN. Identification of hazards unique to this technique is critical before its broader application.

Laparoscopic cholangiography. Results and indications.

One hundred sixty-five operative cholangiograms were attempted in 364 patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy (45%). Laparoscopie cholangiography was successful in 150 of 165 attempts (91%). Eighty-nine per cent of studies were normal (134/150) and 11% were abnormal (16/150). All 134 patients with normal cholangiograms remained asymptomatic (false-negative rate, 0%). False-positive studies occurred in 3 of 150 (2%) total cholangiograms and 3 of 12 (25%) abnormal cholangiograms consistent with choledocholithiasis. A total of 16 of 364 patients had proven common bile duct stones (4.4%). Eight of the sixteen stones were removed by preoperative endoscopie retrograde cholangiopancreatography/sphincterotomy. Five of sixteen stones were found at cholangiography, four of which were unsuspected (4/150, 2.6%). Retained common duct stones were found in 3 of 214 patients not undergoing cholangiography (1.4%). No complications or deaths occurred that were due to cholangiography. One biliary injury occurred (1/364, 0.3%), in a patient with aberrant anatomy who did not undergo cholangiography. Laparoscopie cholangiography is a safe technique with a success rate greater than 90%. Routine cholangiography is presently recommended for prevention of biliary injury, detection of stones in the cystic and common ducts, and for training purposes, especially during the learning phase of laparoscopie cholecystectomy.

The Baltimore experience with laparoscopic management of acute cholecystitis

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy has rapidly emerged as a popular alternative to traditional laparotomy and cholecystectomy. Acute cholecystitis has been considered to be a relative or absolute contraindication to laparoscopic surgery. After gaining extensive experience in laparoscopic biliary tract surgery, this procedure was attempted in 15 patients with acute cholecystitis. All patients were operated on within 72 hours of admission. In five patients, the laparoscopic procedure was converted to an open laparotomy; in one patient, a localized abscess was found, and in the other four patients, extensive inflammation and edema precluded a safe dissection of the vascular and ductal structures. Laparoscopic cholangiography was performed in 14 patients and proved valuable in demonstrating the ductal anatomy. Patients were discharged an average of 2.7 days after the laparoscopic procedure. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy may be safely performed by experienced surgeons in patients with acute cholecystitis. To ensure a low complication rate, a low threshold for converting the procedure to an open laparotomy must be maintained if the ductal and vascular anatomy cannot be safely demonstrated.

Laparoscopic management of acute cholecystitis

The role of laparoscopic surgery in patients presenting with acute cholecystitis remains controversial. From September 1989 through August 1992, a total of 720 patients underwent cholecystectomy. Ninety-six were unplanned admissions with a clinical diagnosis of acute cholecystitis. Laparoscopic surgery was attempted in 83 patients. Thirteen individuals were not offered laparoscopy because of the surgeons inexperience. Twenty-two (27%) patients required the laparoscopic procedure converted to an open laparotomy. The mean postoperative hospital stay for patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy was 3.3 days versus 6.8 days for the laparotomy group. There was no mortality and no bile duct or major vascular injuries in either group. The overall operative morbidity rate was 16.9%. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy appears to be a safe and beneficial option in selected patients with acute cholecystitis. A low threshold for conversion to laparotomy appeared to be an important factor in maintaining a low incidence of operative complications. Several modifications to the technique of laparoscopic cholecystectomy have evolved over the 3-year study period and are described.

Laparoscopic Splenectomy in Patients with Hematologic Diseases

OBJECTIVE The authors review their initial experience with laparoscopic splenectomy in patients with hematologic diseases. Efficacy, morbidity, and mortality of the technique are presented, and other patient recovery parameters are discussed. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA Laparoscopic splenectomy is performed infrequently and data regarding its safety and efficacy are scarce. Factors such as a high level of technical difficulty, the potential for sudden, severe hemorrhage, and slow accrual of operative experience due to a relatively limited number of procedures are responsible. The potential patient benefits from the development of a minimally invasive form of splenectomy are significant. METHODS Clinical follow-up, a prospective longitudinal database, and review of medical records were analyzed for all patients referred for elective splenectomy for hematologic disease from March 1992 to March 1995. RESULTS Laparoscopic splenectomy was attempted in 43 patients and successfully completed in 35 (81%). Therapeutic platelet response to splenectomy occurred in 82% of patients with immune thrombocytopenic purpura and hematocrit level increased in 60% of patients with autoimmune hemolytic anemia undergoing successful laparoscopic splenectomy. The morbidity rate was 11.6% (5 of 43 patients), and the mortality rate was 4.7% (2 of 43 patients). Return of gastrointestinal function occurred in patients 23.1 hours after laparoscopic splenectomy and 76 hours after conversion to open splenectomy (p < 0.05). Mean length of stay was 2.7 days after laparoscopic splenectomy and 6.8 days after conversion to open splenectomy (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION Laparoscopic splenectomy may be performed with efficacy, morbidity, and mortality rates comparable to those of open splenectomy for hematologic diseases, and it appears to retain other patient benefits of laparoscopic surgery.

Laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy and multiple renal arteries

BACKGROUND Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) is a new technique. While the short-term recipient renal function is equivalent to that of the traditional open nephrectomy (ODN), long-term function and potential exclusion criteria, such as the presence of multiple renal arteries, are as yet unknown. METHODS Retrospective review of 124 consecutive LDN performed from March 1996 to September 1997 with 117 ODN as historical controls. RESULTS The 1-year actuarial graft and patient survival for LDN kidneys were 94% and 95%, respectively. These were not statistically different from that of the ODN controls. The presence of multiple renal arteries did not alter graft and patient survival or prevalence of immunologic events. The number of recipient ureteral complications in the LDN group was 11.2% compared with 3.4% in ODN (P < 0.01). Following correction for a learning curve with accompanying technical modifications, the prevalence of recipient ureteral complications has decreased to 7% in the last 94 patients (P = nonsignificant versus ODN). CONCLUSIONS LDN represents a viable alternative to ODN for living renal transplants. Advantages for the donor are matched by equivalent functional results for the recipients.

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.