May Y. Lind

Comparison of laparoscopic and mini incision open donor nephrectomy: single blind, randomised controlled clinical trial.

Abstract Objectives To determine the best approach for live donor nephrectomy to minimise discomfort to the donor and to provide good graft function. Design Single blind, randomised controlled trial. Setting Two university medical centres, the Netherlands. Participants 100 living kidney donors. Interventions Participants were randomly assigned to either laparoscopic donor nephrectomy or to mini incision muscle splitting open donor nephrectomy. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was physical fatigue using the multidimensional fatigue inventory 20 (MFI-20). Secondary outcomes were physical function using the SF-36, hospital stay after surgery, pain, operating times, recipient graft function, and graft survival. Results Conversions did not occur. Compared with mini incision open donor nephrectomy, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy resulted in longer skin to skin time (median 221 v 164 minutes, P < 0.001), longer warm ischaemia time (6 v 3 minutes, P < 0.001), less blood loss (100 v 240 ml, P < 0.001), and a similar number of complications (intraoperatively 12% v 6%, P = 0.49, postoperatively both 6%). After laparoscopic nephrectomy, donors required less morphine (16 v 25 mg, P = 0.005) and shorter hospital stay (3 v 4 days, P = 0.003). During one years follow-up mean physical fatigue was less (difference - 1.3, 95% confidence interval - 2.4 to - 0.1) and physical function was better (difference 6.2, 2.0 to 10.3) after laparoscopic nephrectomy. Function of the graft and graft survival rate of the recipient at one year censored for death did not differ (100% after laparoscopic nephrectomy and 98% after open nephrectomy). Conclusions Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy results in a better quality of life compared with mini incision open donor nephrectomy but equal safety and graft function.

Right-sided laparoscopic live-donor nephrectomy: Is reluctance still justified?

Background. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) of the right kidney is performed with great reluctance because of the shorter renal vein and possible increased incidence of venous thrombosis. Methods. In this retrospective, clinical study, right LDN and left LDN were compared. Between December 1997 and May 2001, 101 LDN were performed. Seventy-three (72%) right LDN were compared with 28 (28%) left LDN for clinical characteristics, operative data, and graft function. Results. There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding conversion rate, complications, hospital stay, thrombosis, graft function, and graft survival. Operating time was significantly shorter in the right LDN group (218 vs. 280 min). Conclusion. In this study, right LDN was not associated with a higher number of complications, conversions, or incidence of venous thrombosis compared with the left LDN. Thus, reluctance toward right LDN is not justified, and therefore, right LDN should not be avoided.

Live donor nephrectomy and return to work: Does the operative technique matter?

Background: Several studies report an earlier return to work after minimal invasive kidney donation compared to open donor nephrectomy. However, this variation in outcome might be influenced by other factors than the surgical technique used, such as the advice given by the physician regarding return to work. In this study, we compare the absence from work after open (ODN), laparoscopic (LDN), and hand-assisted donor nephrectomy (HA) performed in the Netherlands, in relation to the advice given. Methods: Questionnaires containing questions about return to work or return to daily activities were sent to 78 donors from three hospitals. In the HA and ODN hospitals, advice on full return to work was 3 months. In contrast, advice given in the LDN hospital was 6 weeks. Results: After LDN, donors resumed their work after 6 weeks, 5 weeks faster compared to ODN (p = 0.002) and HA (p <0.001). Complete return to work occurred 9 weeks sooner in the LDN group compared to the ODN and HA groups (both p <0.001). In the unemployed group, there was no significant difference in length until full return to daily activities. Conclusion: Return to work is influenced by the advice on return to work given by the physician as well as the morbidity associated with the surgical approach.

Body image after laparoscopic or open donor nephrectomy

BackgroundLaparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) is thought to result in a better cosmetic outcome for the altruistic healthy donor than open donor nephrectomy (ODN). To the authors’ knowledge, no studies have established the opinion of donors with respect to their bodily appearance. This study investigates the body image of donors after ODN and LDN.MethodsDonors who underwent surgery between 1994 and 2001 were invited to fill out a body image questionnaire. This questionnaire consists of two subscales: the body image scale (BIS) and the cosmetic scale (CS). A total of 56 LDN subjects and 69 ODN subjects responded to the questionnaire (72% of 174 donors).ResultsBoth groups were comparable in terms of gender, current age, and body mass index (BMI). The time from donation until the time of this study (follow-up assessment) was significantly longer for the ODN groups. The BIS and CS were found to be comparable between the two groups. No associations were found between BIS or CS and follow-up duration. There also was no association between BIS or CS and gender, age and BMI.ConclusionsThe body image ratings of donors do not significantly differ after ODN or LDN.

The effect of laparoscopic and open donor nephrectomy on the long-term renal function in donor and recipient : A retrospective study

Pneumoperitoneum, as used in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN), may result in negative effects on renal function in donor and recipient. This study compares long-term serum creatinine in donor and recipient after laparoscopic and open donor nephrectomy (ODN). A retrospective analysis of 120 LDN and 100 ODN donors and their recipients was performed. Serum creatinine of donor and recipient was recorded and analyzed. The follow-up period posttransplantation was 3 years. Serum creatinine in the recipients was significantly higher in the LDN groups the first week after transplantation. Serum creatinine in the donor was significantly higher in the LDN group at 1 day, 3 months, and 1 year posttransplant. Finally, creatinine levels remained 40% higher compared to preoperative values in both donor groups. LDN results in higher short-term serum creatinine levels in donor and recipient. Long-term serum creatinine levels were comparable after LDN or ODN in donor and recipient.

Effect of prolonged warm ischemia and pneumoperitoneum on renal function in a rat syngeneic kidney transplantation model

BackgroundLaparoscopic donor nephrectomy is associated with several advantages for the donor. However, graft function may be impaired due to use of pneumoperitoneum and prolonged warm ischemia. This study investigated the impact of pneumoperitoneum and prolonged warm ischemia on long-term graft function in a syngeneic rat renal transplant model.MethodsA total of 27 Brown Norway rats were randomized for transplantation of kidneys after three different procedures: no insufflation and no warm ischemia (group 1), no insufflation with 20 min of warm ischemia (group 2), and CO2 insufflation and 20 min of warm ischemia (group 3). Glomerular filtration rate (GRF), serum creatinine, urine volume, urine creatinine, and proteinuria were determined monthly for 1 year. One year after transplantation, the grafts were removed for histomorphologic analysis.ResultsNo significant differences in GRF, serum creatinine, urine volume, and proteinuria were found among the three groups. Histologic analysis also showed no differences between the groups.ConclusionWarm ischemia in combination with CO2 pneumoperitoneum, as used in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy, does not result in a negative effect on long-term graft function.