ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The safety of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) has been widely documented, but its challenging learning curve (LC) requires an insightful assessment to expand its application. The aim of this study was to evaluate LC of LDN in a high-volume transplant center. METHODS: Three hundred forty-three LDNs performed from 2001 to 2018 were evaluated. CUSUM analysis based on the operative time was used to assess the number of cases required to reach mastery in the technique for both the entire surgical team and for the 3 main surgeons considered separately. Analysis of association between demographics, perioperative characteristics, and complications within the different LC phases was conducted. RESULTS: Mean operative time was 228.9 minutes. Mean length of stay was 3.8 days and mean warm ischemia time (WIT) was 170.8 seconds. Surgical and medical complication rates were 7.3% and 6.4%, respectively. The CUSUM-LC showed a requirement of 157 cases (for surgical team) and 75 cases (for single surgeons) to reach competence in the procedure. Patient baseline characteristic showed no differences among the LC phases. Compared with the initial LC phase, hospital stay was significantly lower at the end of the LC whereas WIT results were longer in the LC descendent phase. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the safety and efficacy of LDN, with a low rate of complications. This analysis suggests that about 75 procedures are required to reach competence and 93 cases to achieve mastery level of skill for a single surgeon. It can be hypothesized that, in a high-volume transplant enter, the time to guarantee training in LDN is compatible with the duration of a clinical fellowship.
Subject(s)
Laparoscopy , Surgeons , Humans , Nephrectomy/methods , Living Donors , Operative Time , Laparoscopy/adverse effects , Laparoscopy/methods , Tissue and Organ Harvesting/adverse effects , Length of Stay , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Although laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) represents the gold-standard technique for kidney living donation, robotic donor nephrectomy (RDN) settled as another appealing minimally invasive technique over the past decades. A comparison between LDN and RDN outcomes was performed. METHODS: RDN and LDN outcomes were compared, focusing on operative time and perioperative risk factors affecting surgery duration. Learning curves for both techniques were compared through spline regression and cumulative sum models. RESULTS: The study analyzed 512 procedures (154 RDN and 358 LDN procedures) performed between 2010 and 2021 in 2 different high-volume transplant centers. The RDN group presented a higher prevalence of arterial variations (36.2 versus 22.4%; P = 0.001) compared with the LDN cohort. No open conversions occurred; operative time (210 versus 195 min; P = 0.011) and warm ischemia time (WIT; 230 versus 180 s; P < 0.001) were longer in RDN. Postoperative complication rate was similar (8.4% versus 11.5%; P = 0.49); the RDN group showed shorter hospital stay (4 versus 5 d; P < 0.001). Spline regression models depicted a faster learning curve in the RDN group ( P = 0.0002). Accordingly, cumulative sum analysis highlighted a turning point after about 50 procedures among the RDN cohort and after about 100 procedures among the LDN group.Higher body mass index resulted as an independent risk factor for longer operative time for both techniques; multiple arteries significantly prolonged operative time in LDN, whereas RDN was longer in right kidney procurements; both procedures were equally shortened by growing surgical experience. CONCLUSIONS: RDN grants a faster learning curve and improves multiple vessel handling. Incidence of postoperative complications was low for both techniques.
Subject(s)
Kidney Transplantation , Laparoscopy , Robotic Surgical Procedures , Humans , Retrospective Studies , Learning Curve , Robotic Surgical Procedures/adverse effects , Nephrectomy/adverse effects , Nephrectomy/methods , Kidney Transplantation/adverse effects , Kidney Transplantation/methods , Living Donors , Kidney/surgery , Tissue and Organ Harvesting/adverse effects , Postoperative Complications/epidemiology , Postoperative Complications/etiology , Laparoscopy/adverse effects , Laparoscopy/methods , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
The antibody and T cell responses after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination have not been formally compared between kidney and liver transplant recipients. Using a multiplex assay, we measured IgG levels against 4 epitopes of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and nucleocapsid (NC) antigen, SARS-CoV-2 variants, and common coronaviruses in serial blood samples from 52 kidney and 50 liver transplant recipients undergoing mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. We quantified IFN-γ/IL-2 T cells reactive against SARS-CoV-2 spike protein by FluoroSpot. We used multivariable generalized linear models to adjust for the differences in immunosuppression between groups. In liver transplant recipients, IgG levels against every SARS-CoV-2 spike epitope increased significantly more than in kidney transplant recipients (MFI: 19,617 vs 6,056; P<0.001), a difference that remained significant after adjustments. Vaccine did not affect IgG levels against NC nor common coronaviruses. Elicited antibodies recognized all variants tested but at significantly lower strength than the original Wuhan strain. Anti-spike IFN-γ-producing T cells increased significantly more in liver than in kidney transplant recipients (IFN-γ-producing T cells 28 vs 11 spots/5x105 cells), but this difference lost statistical significance after adjustments. SARS-CoV-2 vaccine elicits a stronger antibody response in liver than in kidney transplant recipients, a phenomenon that is not entirely explained by the different immunosuppression.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Liver Transplantation , Viral Vaccines , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , Epitopes , Humans , Immunoglobulin G , Kidney , SARS-CoV-2 , Spike Glycoprotein, CoronavirusABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Although liver resection is still the best treatment for primary or metastatic hepatic lesions, a conventional surgical approach may be challenging in patients with a history of previous abdominal surgery. We present a case of a 58-year-old white man with paracaval, subdiaphragmatic, recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma; he had a history of multiple abdominal surgeries. METHODS: In select patients, percutaneous ultrasound-guided thermal ablation is a valid non-surgical alternative due to its safety, efficacy, and good tolerability. Hepatic lesions located in the posterosuperior segments, however, can be difficult to reach via a percutaneous approach. RESULT: For these cases, one-lung left-sided ventilation may be particularly helpful in blocking the right hemidiaphragm and improving the acoustic window to the liver. CONCLUSION: We present a case of paracaval, subdiaphragmatic, recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma in which the tumor was only reachable after one-lung left-sided ventilation that was successfully treated by percutaneous ultrasound-guided microwave ablation.