ABSTRACT
Background: We aimed to assess the safety of a modified peritoneal fenestration technique with clipping of the window edges during kidney transplantation (KTx) and to determine its impact on reducing lymphocele following KTx. We compared the outcomes of this modified method with those of peritoneal fenestration without clipping. Methods: Among 430 consecutive KTxs performed between 2015 and 2019, preventive peritoneal fenestration and clipping of the margins were performed in 25 patients. These patients were compared with 75 matched patients in whom the margins were not clipped. Postoperative lymphocele formation and other patient data were compared between these two groups. Results: The rate of clinically relevant lymphocele decreased by 2.7% after peritoneal fenestration with clipping, although this decrease was not statistically significant (p = 0.829). There was no significant increase in the rate of other complications in the modified fenestration group (p = 0.067). The incidence of clinically significant lymphocele formation was notably higher in patients with a body mass index greater than 25 kg/m2 (p = 0.028). Univariate analysis indicated that older recipients, individuals with a history of previous abdominal surgery, those receiving the kidney from deceased and older donors were at increased risk of developing a clinically relevant lymphocele. Conclusions: Our preliminary results suggest that peritoneal fenestration with clipping may be as effective as the conventional fenestration technique in preventing lymphocele formation. Further clinical trials with larger sample sizes are required to determine the exact role of preventive peritoneal fenestration with clipping in preventing clinically relevant lymphocele after KTx.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: There are multiple methods for preventing lymphocele formation after kidney transplantation (KTx). However, lymphoceles still develop in up to one third of patients and the effectiveness of these different methods in preventing lymphocele is not well described. Here, we summarize the current strategies for preventing lymphocele after KTx. METHODS: We conducted searches across several literature databases, including Medline (via PubMed), Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central. Lymphocele formation after KTx was the outcome of interest. A random-effects model was applied to evaluate pooled estimates, which were presented as hazard ratios (HRs) and odds ratios (ORs), along with the random pooled estimate (ES), 95% confidence interval (95% CI), and P value. We calculated the pooled rate of lymphocele formation after KTx with the following preventive methods: LigaSure, haemostatic materials, prophylactic drainage, ligation, peritoneal fenestration, and bipolar cautery techniques. RESULTS: The literature search retrieved 87 unique studies after excluding duplicates. Twenty papers reporting on 5445 patients were incorporated in the qualitative analysis. The pooled lymphocele rate was 3.0% (95% CI = 0.6-13.7) for the LigaSure method, 8.3% (95% CI = 6.4-10.7) for drainage, 9.2% (95% CI = 5.9-14.1) for haemostatic materials, 12.2% (95% CI = 9.2-16.1) for ligation, 14.4% (95% CI = 12.0-17.3) for peritoneal fenestration, and 20.5% (95% CI = 10.2-36.8) for bipolar sealing. CONCLUSION: Despite preventive methods, the incidence of lymphocele following KTx remains high. The use of LigaSure appears to be the most effective method for preventing lymphocele. However, given the broad range of reported lymphocele rates and lack of control groups, further validation of these findings is necessary.