Small donor size does not negatively impact outcomes after deceased-donor renal transplantation.

Higher body mass index (BMI) of deceased-donors is associated with poorer outcomes in transplant recipients. The effect of low donor BMI on recipient graft function is not clear. Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data on recipients of deceased-donor kidneys from 2000 to 2019 were categorized by donor BMI (donor BMI < 18, 18-27, and >27). Primary outcome was death-censored graft survival. The impact of multiple recipient and donor variables, including low donor BMI and the difference between donor and recipient BMI, was evaluated using a multivariate Cox proportional-hazards model. Low BMI donors (LBD) were more likely to be younger, female, and white (all P < .05). LBD were less likely to be Hispanic, diabetic, or have hypertension (all P < .001). LBD recipients were more likely to be younger and female (both P < .001). Low donor BMI was not significantly associated with recipient graft survival. Donor-recipient BMI difference did not correlate with an increased risk of graft failure. Similar results were obtained when donors were classified using body surface area (BSA). Small donor size in terms of BMI or BSA or a large discrepancy between donor and recipient size should not necessarily preclude transplantation of an otherwise acceptable kidney.

Robotic-assisted Donor Nephrectomy: As Safe as Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy.

OBJECTIVES: Robotic-assisted donor nephrectomy has become increasingly popular in recent years. We sought to compare robotic-assisted outcomes to operative outcomes in a historical cohort of laparoscopic donor nephrectomies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of 58 consecutive donor nephrectomies at a single center by two surgeons from 2015 to 2019 was performed. RESULTS: Robotic-assisted (n = 32) and laparoscopic (n =26) donors were comparable in terms of estimated blood loss (66.4 vs. 62.5 mL; p=0.81) and length of stay (1.6 vs. 1.5 days; p=0.37). The post-operative change in creatinine was not significantly different between the groups (-0.45 vs. -0.45; p=0.97). Warm ischemia time was longer in the robotic group (7.36 vs. 5.15 minutes; p < 0.01). Case duration was significantly longer for robotic-assisted cases (306 vs. 247 minutes; p < 0.01). However, robotic cases were more likely to be right-sided (6/32 (18.8%) vs. 1/26 (3.8%)) and have vascular multiplicity (7/32 (21.9%) vs. 0/26 (0%)). There was one Clavien II or greater complication in the robotic group, and none in the laparoscopic group. CONCLUSIONS: Our data agree with previous reports that robotic-assisted donor nephrectomy is safe and has similar outcomes to a laparoscopic approach. Moreover, cases with multiple renal arteries or veins and right-sided cases were completed safely using the robotic approach. The longer case duration in the robotic group was attributed to the learning curve associated with implementing a new technique, and later robotic operative times approached laparoscopic operative times.

PD-L1 pathway as a novel target in carcinosarcoma of the kidney and renal pelvis.

Carcinosarcoma of the kidney and renal pelvis (CSKP) is a rare and highly-aggressive malignancy characterized by rapid progression and widespread metastases. To date, few studies describe the natural history of the disease. We present a patient placed on pembrolizumab therapy for suspected metastatic colon cancer. The patient was found to have a right renal mass with caval extension on surveillance and ultimately underwent radical surgery revealing carcinosarcoma with positive PD-L1 expression with no evidence of recurrence to date. To our knowledge, this is the first case describing PD-L1 expression in CSKP and presents a novel pathway for future treatment algorithms.

Initial Experience with the Use of a Robotic Stapler for Robot-Assisted Donor Nephrectomy.

INTRODUCTION: Since the first description of robot-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy for living donor renal transplantation, additional studies have noted outcomes comparable to traditional laparoscopic surgery. Urologists have embraced the technical advantages of the robotic approach, including improved dissection and more accurate graft preservation. With the advent of robotic stapling, we aim to demonstrate the feasibility of the use of robotic stapling for living-donor nephrectomies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten cases of da Vinci® EndoWrist® Stapler use during robot-assisted donor nephrectomy by a single surgeon are reported. Variables examined included patient anatomy, estimated blood loss (EBL), warm ischemia time (WIT), postoperative complications, and graft function at follow-up. The costs of the laparoscopic and robotic staplers at our institution are reported. RESULTS: One right and nine left nephrectomies were performed by a single surgeon. Eight living donors had a single renal artery and vein, while two had multiple renal arteries and renal veins. A single vascular stapler load (45-mm, white cartridge) was used for vessels in all cases. WIT was <6 minutes in each case, and EBL ranged from 13 to 100 mL. Sufficient length on the renal artery and vein was obtained to execute anastomoses in all cases. Only one patient had postoperative complications that were related to anesthesia. Graft function of recipients and postoperative renal function has been adequate to date. The cost of using the robotic stapler was $705 (EndoWrist Stapler), and the cost of the laparoscopic stapler (Endo GIA™ Stapler; Medtronic, Dublin, Ireland) was $494.06. CONCLUSIONS: The use of robotic stapler is feasible in terms of patient safety, technique, postoperative outcomes, and cost in both left- and right-sided living-donor robotic nephrectomies. Further research is needed to confirm the benefit and safety of EndoWrist stapler use in robotic donor nephrectomies compared to laparoscopic stapler use.