Laparoscopic to robotic living donor nephrectomy: Is it time to change surgical technique?

BACKGROUND: We aimed to explore differences in outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic donor nephrectomies (LDN). METHODS: This study compared robotic and laparoscopic surgical techniques for live donor nephrectomies in 153 patients at a single centre. RESULTS: Left nephrectomies were more common in both groups, but with no significant difference between the groups (76.6% vs. 77.6%, p = 0.88). The robotic donor nephrectomies (RDN) group experienced significantly less blood loss (60 vs. 134 mL, p < 0.01), but warm ischaemia time was similar between groups (3.2 vs. 3.7 min, p = 0.54).The RDN group had decreased subjective pain scores (3.54 vs. 4.21, p = 0.04) and shorter length of hospitalisation (2.22 vs. 3.04 days, p < 0.01).There were also fewer complications in the RDN than the LDN group (4 vs. 8, p = 0.186). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that RDN is a safe and alternative to LDN. Decreased blood loss and hospital stays and fewer complications may reflect decreased tissue manipulation with robotic assistance.

Chylous Ascites After Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy: Is Early Surgical Intervention Necessary?

OBJECTIVES: Chylous ascites is a rare complication that may occur after living donor nephrectomy. The continuous loss of lymphatics, which carries a high risk of morbidity, may ensue in possible immunodeficiency and protein-calorie malnutrition. Here, we presented patients who developed chylous ascites after robotassisted living donor nephrectomy and reviewed the current literature of therapeutic strategies for chylous ascites. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the medical records of 424 laparoscopic living donor nephrectomies performed at a single transplant center; among these, we studied the records of 3 patients who developed chylous ascites following robot-assisted living donor nephrectomy. RESULTS: Among 438 living donor nephrectomies, 359 (81.9%) were laparoscopic and 77 (18.1%) were by robotic assistance. In the 3 cases highlighted in our study, patient 1 did not respond to conservative therapy, which consisted of diet optimization, total parenteral nutrition, and octreotide (somatostatin). Patient 1 subsequently underwent robotic-assisted laparoscopy with suture ligation and clipping of leaking lymphatic vessels, allowing the chylous ascites to subside. Patient 2 similarly did not respond to conservative treatment and developed ascites. Despite initial improvement after wound interrogation and drainage, patient 2 had continued symptoms, resulting in diagnostic laparoscopy and repair of leaky channels leading to the cisterna chyli. Patient 3 developed chylous ascites 4 weeks postoperatively and received ultrasonographic-guided paracentesis by interventional radiology, with results showing an aspirate consistent with chyle. The patient's diet was optimized, allowing for initial improvement and eventual return to normal diet. CONCLUSIONS: Our case series and literature review demonstrate the importance of early surgical intervention after failed conservative management for resolution of chylous ascites in patients after robotassisted donor laparoscopic nephrectomy.

Deceased Donor Kidney Transplantation From Donors With Acute Kidney Injury: Realities and Costs.

OBJECTIVES: Transplant of kidneys from donors with acute kidney injury has shown favorable outcomes. We investigated the outcomes of kidney transplant recipients with deceased donors who developed acute kidney injury before organ procurement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of recipients from January 2016 to December 2021 in a single center. Outcomes in recipients of kidney grafts from donors with and without acute kidney injury were compared. RESULTS: The mean follow-up time was 40 months. Our study included 129 (34%) kidneys transplanted from donors with acute kidney injury and 251 (66%) kidneys from donors without acute kidney injury. Delayed graft function rate in recipients was 33% in the acute kidney injury group and 25.5% in the group without acute kidney injury (P = .099). Readmission rate at 30 days was significantly higher among recipients of kidneys with acute kidney injury compared with recipients of kidneys without acute kidney injury (45% vs 33.5%; P = .02). The mean overall costs of transplant in the acute kidney injury group were comparable to the group without acute kidney injury ($253 865 vs $253 611; P = .97). The acute rejection rate was comparable between the 2 groups (4% in both groups; P = .96). Delayed graft function rate was increased with increased stage of acute kidney injury (18% stage 1, 45% stage 2, 36% stage 3; P = .03). However, the overall length of hospital stay and costs were comparable among recipients of different stages of acute kidney injury. CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that kidney transplants from donors with acute kidney injury have early and late outcomes comparable to kidney transplants from donors without acute kidney injury. Allografts from donors with acute kidney injury can be used safely and can expand the donor pool in kidney transplant without increasing perioperative resource utilization.