Donor nephrectomy: mini-incision muscle-splitting open approach versus laparoscopy.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) has encouraged the development of less invasive open techniques. Aim of the present study was to compare short-term outcomes between contemporary cohorts of donors who underwent either mini-incision open or laparoscopic kidney donation. METHODS: From May 2001 to September 2004 data of all living kidney donations and transplantations were prospectively collected. Fifty-one donors underwent mini-incision, muscle-splitting open donor nephrectomy (MIDN) and 49 donors underwent LDN. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of donors and recipients in the study groups were comparable except for donors' gender. Median incision length in MIDN was 10.5 cm. In two patients LDN was converted to open. MIDN resulted in significantly shorter warm ischemia and operation time (2.5 vs. 6.5 min and 157 vs. 240 min respectively). During MIDN, donors had more blood loss (200 vs. 120 ml, P=0.02). Disposables used for MIDN were cheaper (328 vs. 1784 Euros). In the LDN group 4 (8%) major intraoperative and 2 (4%) major postoperative complications occurred versus no major complications in the MIDN group. Morphine requirement, pain and nausea perception, and time to dietary intake did not significantly differ between the groups. Following MIDN, donors were discharged later (4 vs. 3 days, P=0.02). Transplantation of kidneys procured by either approach led to a similar decline in serum creatinine throughout the first year. One-year graft survival was 100% following MIDN and 86% following LDN (P=0.005). CONCLUSION: MIDN and LDN both lead to satisfactory results. Both techniques can be used to expand living donor programs.

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.

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.

Endovenous laser ablation versus conventional surgery in the treatment of small saphenous vein incompetence.

INTRODUCTION: In this multicenter, randomized controlled trial, endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) is compared with conventional surgery for the treatment of varicose veins based on incompetence of the small saphenous vein and the saphenopopliteal junction (SPJ). METHODS: In two Dutch hospitals, 189 patients were enrolled and randomized to receive EVLA (810-nm laser) or ligation of the SPJ. End points were success rate measured with duplex ultrasound (6 weeks post-treatment), perioperative pain, quality of life, duration of surgery, difficulty of surgery, complications, cosmetic results, and number of days to resume work and normal activities. Pain was measured on a visual analog scale (VAS). Quality of life was assessed using the Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire (AVVQ) and Euro Qol-5D. The follow-up duration in this article is 6 weeks. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-five patients have been treated and analyzed. One hundred eighteen patients (67%) underwent EVLA, and 57 patients (33%) underwent ligation of the SPJ. The patient characteristics were similar in both groups. In the surgery group, 21% residual incompetence of the SPJ was seen after 6 weeks, compared with 0.9% in the laser group. Both treatment modalities reduced pain after 6 weeks. One week post-treatment, patients in the EVLA group temporarily experienced more pain compared with the surgery group (31 vs 18 on a VAS from 0 to 100). There were no significant differences between the two groups with respect to quality of life. Both treatments did show improvement in quality of life. Also with regard to the cosmetics, there were no differences, aside from the fact that patients rated their scar as more beautiful after EVLA. After EVLA, patients could return to work more quickly. The operation time was longer in the surgery group. After 2 weeks, there were significantly more neurological complications in the surgery group: 18 (31%) vs 16 (17%) patients in the EVLA group. Ten percent of patients in the surgery group developed a surgical site infection vs 0% in the EVLA group. CONCLUSIONS: EVLA provides an excellent alternative to conventional surgery in the treatment of symptomatic varicose veins due to an incompetent small saphenous vein with SPJ. EVLA has a superior immediate success rate, is easier and faster, and has fewer complications.

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

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 year's 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.