Five-year follow-up after live donor nephrectomy - cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis of a prospective cohort within the era of extended donor eligibility criteria.

To establish the outcome of live kidney donors 5 years after donation, we investigated the risk for progressive renal function decline and quality of life (QoL). Data on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), creatinine, hypertension, QoL and survival were assessed in a prospective cohort of 190 donors, who donated between 2008 and 2010. Data were available for >90%. The mean age predonation was 52.8 ± 11.5 years, 30 donors having pre-existent hypertension. The mean follow-up was 5.1 ± 0.9 years. Eight donors had died due to non-donation-related causes. After 5 years, the mean eGFR was 60.2 (95% CI 58.7-62.7) ml/min/1.73 m2 , with a median serum creatinine of 105.1 (95% CI 102.5-107.8) µmol/l. eGFR decreased to 33.6% and was longitudinally lower among men than women and declining with age (P < 0.001), without any association on QoL. Donors with pre-existent and new-onset hypertension demonstrated no progressive decline of renal function overtime compared to nonhypertensives. No donors were found with proteinuria, microalbuminuria or at risk for end-stage renal disease. After an initial decline postdonation, renal function remained unchanged overtime. Men and ageing seem to affect renal function overtime, while decreased renal function did not affect QoL. These data support further stimulation of living kidney donation programmes as seen from the perspective of donor safety.

Can right-sided hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy be advocated above standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a randomized pilot study.

Endoscopic techniques have contributed to early recovery and increased quality of life (QOL) of live kidney donors. However, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) may have its limitations, and hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy (HARP) has been introduced, mainly as a potentially safer alternative. In a randomized fashion, we explored the feasibility and potential benefits of HARP for right-sided donor nephrectomy in a referral center with longstanding expertise on the standard laparoscopic approach. Forty donors were randomly assigned to either LDN or HARP. Primary outcome was operating time, and secondary outcomes included QOL, complications, pain, morphine requirement, blood loss, warm ischemia time, and hospital stay. Follow-up time was 1 year. Skin-to-skin time did not significantly differ between both groups (162 vs. 158 min, P = 0.98). As compared to LDN, HARP resulted in a shorter warm ischemia time (2.8 vs. 3.9 min, P < 0.001) and increased blood loss (187 vs. 50 ml, P < 0.001). QOL, complication rate, pain, or hospital stay was not significantly different between the groups. Right-sided HARP is feasible but does not confer clear benefits over standard right-sided LDN yet. Further studies should explore the value of HARP in difficult cases such as the obese donor and the value of HARP for transplantation centers starting a live kidney donation program (Dutch Trial Register number: NTR3096). Nevertheless, HARP is a valuable addition to the surgical armamentarium in live donor surgery.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the relation between body mass index and short-term donor outcome of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.

In this era of organ donor shortage, live kidney donation has been proven to increase the donor pool; however, it is extremely important to make careful decisions in the selection of possible live donors. A body mass index (BMI) above 35 is generally considered as a relative contraindication for donation. To determine whether this is justified, a systematic review and meta-analysis were carried out to compare perioperative outcome of live donor nephrectomy between donors with high and low BMI. A comprehensive literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library). All aspects of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement were followed. Of 14 studies reviewed, eight perioperative donor outcome measures were meta-analyzed, and, of these, five were not different between BMI categories. Three found significant differences in favor of low BMI (29.9 and less) donors with significant mean differences in operation duration (16.9 min (confidence interval (CI) 9.1-24.8)), mean difference in rise in serum creatinine (0.05 mg/dl (CI 0.01-0.09)), and risk ratio for conversion (1.69 (CI 1.12-2.56)). Thus, a high body mass index (BMI) alone is no contraindication for live kidney donation regarding short-term outcome.

Live donor nephrectomy: a review of evidence for surgical techniques.

SUMMARY: Live kidney donation is an important alternative for patients with end-stage renal disease. To date, the health of live kidney donors at long-term follow-up is good, and the procedure is considered to be safe. Surgical practice has evolved from the open lumbotomy, through mini-incision muscle-splitting open donor nephrectomy, to minimally invasive laparoscopic techniques. There are different minimally invasive techniques, including standard laparoscopic, hand-assisted laparoscopic, hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic, pure retroperitoneoscopic, and robotic-assisted live donor nephrectomy. At present, these minimally invasive techniques are subjected to clinical trials focusing on surgical outcome, quality of life, costs, long-term follow-up, and also morbidity of donor, recipient, and graft. In practice, many centers only perform donor nephrectomy on young healthy donors with normal weight. There is increasing evidence that donor nephrectomy with multiple arteries, right kidney and obese patients can be done with precaution. In this review, we address the surgical part of live kidney donation and the best level of evidence for all surgical techniques and issues surrounding the technique.

Optimizing left-sided live kidney donation: hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic as alternative to standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) is less traumatic and painful than the open approach, with shorter convalescence time. Hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic (HARP) donor nephrectomy may have benefits, particularly in left-sided nephrectomy, including shorter operation and warm-ischemia time (WIT) and improved safety. We evaluated outcomes of HARP alongside LDN. From July 2006 to May 2008, 20 left-sided HARP procedures and 40 left-sided LDNs were performed. Intra and postoperative data were prospectively collected and analysis on outcome of both techniques was performed. More female patients underwent HARP compared to LDN (75% vs. 40%, P = 0.017). Other baseline characteristics were not significantly different. Median operation time and WIT were shorter in HARP (180 vs. 225 min, P = 0.002 and 3 vs. 5 min, P = 0.007 respectively). Blood loss did not differ (200 ml vs.150 ml, P = 0.39). Intra and postoperative complication rates for HARP and LDN (respectively 10% vs. 25%, P = 0.17 and 5% vs. 15%, P = 0.25) were not significantly different. During median follow-up of 18 months estimated glomerular filtration rates in donors and recipients and graft- and recipient survival did not differ between groups. Hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy reduces operation and warm ischemia times, and provides at least equal safety. Hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic may be a valuable alternative for left-sided LDN.

Hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic versus standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: HARP-trial.

BACKGROUND: Transplantation is the only treatment offering long-term benefit to patients with chronic kidney failure. Live donor nephrectomy is performed on healthy individuals who do not receive direct therapeutic benefit of the procedure themselves. In order to guarantee the donor's safety, it is important to optimise the surgical approach. Recently we demonstrated the benefit of laparoscopic nephrectomy experienced by the donor. However, this method is characterised by higher in hospital costs, longer operating times and it requires a well-trained surgeon. The hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic technique may be an alternative to a complete laparoscopic, transperitoneal approach. The peritoneum remains intact and the risk of visceral injuries is reduced. Hand-assistance results in a faster procedure and a significantly reduced operating time. The feasibility of this method has been demonstrated recently, but as to date there are no data available advocating the use of one technique above the other. METHODS/DESIGN: The HARP-trial is a multi-centre randomised controlled, single-blind trial. The study compares the hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic approach with standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. The objective is to determine the best approach for live donor nephrectomy to optimise donor's safety and comfort while reducing donation related costs. DISCUSSION: This study will contribute to the evidence on any benefits of hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic versus standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register NTR1433.

Complex vascular anatomy in live kidney donation: imaging and consequences for clinical outcome.

BACKGROUND: Live donor kidneys with multiple arteries are associated with surgical complexity for removal and increased rate of recipient ureteral complications. We evaluated the outcome of vascular imaging and the clinical consequences of multiple arteries and veins. METHODS: From 2001 to 2005 data of 288 live kidney donations and transplantations were prospectively collected. Vascular anatomy at operation was compared with vascular anatomy as imaged by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or subtraction angiography, and consequences of multiple vessels were investigated. RESULTS: Simple renal anatomy with a solitary artery and vein was present in 208 (72%) kidneys. Sixty (21%) transplants had multiple arteries. Thirty (10%) transplants had multiple veins. Magnetic resonance imaging failed to predict arterial anatomy in 23 of 220 donors (10%) compared with 3 of 101 (3%) after angiography. The presence of multiple veins did not influence outcomes after nephrectomy in general. Multiple arteries did not affect clinical outcomes in open donor nephrectomy (n=103). In laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (n=185) multiple arteries were associated with longer operation times (245 vs. 221 min, P=0.023) and increased blood loss (225 vs. 220 mL, P=0.029). In general, neither multiple arteries nor vascular reconstructions influenced recipient creatinine clearance or ureteral complication rate. However, accessory arteries to the lower pole correlated with an increased rate of ureteral complications (47% vs. 14%, P=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Multiple arteries may increase operation time. Accessory lower pole arteries are associated with a higher rate of recipient ureteral complications indicating the importance of arterial imaging. Currently, both magnetic resonance imaging and angiography provide suboptimal information on renal vascular anatomy.

Randomized controlled trial comparing hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic versus standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) has become the gold standard for live-donor nephrectomy, as it results in a short convalescence time and increased quality of life. However, intraoperative safety has been debated, as severe complications occur incidentally. Hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy (HARP) is an alternative approach, combining the safety of hand-guided surgery with the benefits of endoscopic techniques and retroperitoneal access. We assessed the best approach to optimize donors' quality of life and safety. METHODS: In two tertiary referral centers, donors undergoing left-sided nephrectomy were randomly assigned to HARP or LDN. Primary endpoint was physical function, one of the dimensions of the Short Form-36 questionnaire on quality of life, at 1 month postoperatively. Secondary endpoints included intraoperative events and operation times. Follow-up was 1 year. RESULTS: In total, 190 donors were randomized. Physical function at 1 month follow-up did not significantly differ between groups (estimated difference, 1.79; 95% confidence interval, -4.1 to 7.68; P=0.55). HARP resulted in significantly shorter skin-to-skin time (mean, 159 vs. 188 min; P<0.001), shorter warm ischemia time (2 vs. 5 min; P<0.001) and a lower intraoperative event rate (5% vs. 11%, P=0.117). Length of stay (both 3 days; P=0.135) and postoperative complication rate (8% vs. 8%; P=1.00) were not significantly different. Potential graft-related complications did not significantly differ (6% vs. 13%; P=0.137). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with LDN, left-sided HARP leads to similar quality of life, shorter operating time, and warm ischemia time. Therefore, we recommend HARP as a valuable alternative to the laparoscopic approach for left-sided donor nephrectomy.

Quality of life of elderly live kidney donors.

BACKGROUND: Expanding the use of elderly live donors may help meet the demand for kidney transplants. The aim of this study was to quantify the effect of the surgical procedure on the quality of life (QOL) of elderly donors compared with younger donors. METHODS: Alongside three prospective studies (two randomized) running between May 2001 and October 2010, we asked 501 live donors to fill out the Short Form-36 questionnaire preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. We defined live donors 60 years or older as elderly. Between-group analyses regarding QOL were adjusted for baseline values and gender. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-five donors were older and 366 donors were younger than 60 years. The response rate was high, with 87% at 12 months postoperatively. Elderly donors less often scored as American Society of Anaesthesiology classification 1 (60% vs. 81%; P<0.001) indicating a higher rate of minor comorbidity. At 1 month postoperatively, between-group analysis showed a significant advantage in QOL in favor of the elderly group regarding the dimensions "bodily pain" (7 points; P=0.001), "role physical" (18 points; P<0.001), and "vitality" (5 points; P=0.008). At 3 months, "bodily pain" (3 points, P=0.04) and "role physical" (8 points, P=0.02) were still in favor of the older group. At 6 and 12 months, "physical function" was in favor of the younger group (3 and 5 points, respectively; P=0.04 and P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that elderly donors recover relatively fast. The perspective of excellent postoperative QOL may help convince elderly individuals to donate.

Cost-effectiveness of hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic versus standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a randomized study.

BACKGROUND: Live kidney donation has a clear economical benefit over dialysis and deceased-donor transplantation. Compared with mini-incision open donor nephrectomy, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) is considered cost-effective. However, little is known on the cost-effectiveness of hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy (HARP). This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of HARP versus LDN. METHODS: Alongside a randomized controlled trial, the cost-effectiveness of HARP versus LDN was assessed. Eighty-six donors were included in the LDN group and 82 in the HARP group. All in-hospital costs were recorded. During follow-up, return-to-work and other societal costs were documented up to 1 year. The EuroQol-5D questionnaire was administered up to 1 year postoperatively to calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). RESULTS: Mean total costs from a healthcare perspective were $8935 for HARP and $8650 for LDN (P = 0.25). Mean total costs from a societal perspective were $16,357 for HARP and $16,286 for LDN (P = 0.79). On average, donors completely resumed their daytime jobs on day 54 in the HARP group and on day 52 in the LDN group (P = 0.65). LDN resulted in a gain of 0.005 QALYs. CONCLUSIONS: Absolute costs of both procedures are very low and the differences in costs and QALYs between LDN and HARP are very small. Other arguments, such as donor safety and pain, should determine the choice between HARP and LDN.

Attitudes among surgeons towards live-donor nephrectomy: a European update.

BACKGROUND: The increasing number of living kidney donors in the last decade has led to the development of novel surgical techniques for live-donor nephrectomy. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the current status of the surgical approach in Europe. METHODS: A survey was sent to 119 transplant centers in 12 European countries. Questions included the number of donors, the technique used, and the acceptance of donors with comorbidities. RESULTS: Ninety-six centers (81%) replied. The number of living donors per center ranged from 0 to 124. Thirty-one institutions (32%) harvested kidneys using open techniques only. Six centers (6%) applied both endoscopic and open techniques; 59 centers (61%) performed endoscopic donor nephrectomy only. Lack of evidence that endoscopic techniques provide superior results was the main reason for still performing open donor nephrectomy. In seven centers, a lumbotomy is still performed. Seventy-two centers (75%) accept donors with a body mass index of more than 30 kg/m, the median upper limit in these centers was 35 kg/m (range, 31-40). Donors with an American Society of Anesthesiologists classification higher than 1 were accepted in 55% of the centers. CONCLUSIONS: Live kidney donation in general and minimally invasive donor nephrectomy in particular are more commonly applied in Northern and Western Europe. However, a classic lumbotomy is still performed in a minority of centers. Because minimally invasive techniques have been proven superior, more attention should be given to educational programs in this field to let many kidney donors benefit.

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a plea for the right-sided approach.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) has become the preferred procedure for live donor nephrectomy. Most transplant surgeons are reluctant toward right-sided LDN (R-LDN) fearing short vessels and renal vein thrombosis. METHODS: In our institution, selection of the appropriate kidney for donation was based on the same criteria that traditionally governed open donor nephrectomy. All intraoperative and postoperative data were prospectively recorded. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-nine R-LDNs (56%) and 124 left-sided LDNs (L-LDN, 44%) were performed. Demographics did not significantly differ. Complications occurred in 10 (6%) vs. 23 (19%) procedures (R-LDN vs. L-LDN, P=0.002), resulting in 2 and 11 conversions, respectively. Right-sided kidney donation was the only independent preventative factor for complications in multivariate analysis (P=0.008, Odds ratio 0.33). R-LDN was associated with shorter operation time (mean 202 vs. 247 min, P<0.001) and less blood loss (139 vs. 294 mL, P<0.001). Hospital stay was 3 days in both groups. With regard to the recipients, the second warm ischemia time was similar (29 vs. 28 min, P=0.699). CONCLUSIONS: R-LDN is faster and safer than L-LDN and does not adversely affect graft function. R-LDN may be advocated to allow donors to benefit from the advantages of laparoscopic surgery.