Outcomes after 20 years of experience in minimally invasive living-donor nephrectomy.

INTRODUCTION: The transperitoneal laparoscopic approach is considered the gold standard technique for living kidney donation. Other accepted laparoscopic techniques include the retroperitoneal approach, natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES)-assisted, laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery (LESS), with excellent results in the donor and graft. Many studies have compared these techniques with open ones. Our objective is to describe our experience and results in minimally invasive living-donor nephrectomies (MILDN): laparoscopic, NOTES-assisted, and LESS since their introduction in March 2002. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational study of donors undergoing MILDN between March 2002 and March 2020. RESULTS: A total of 714 MILDNs were performed at our centre. All were completed, except for one, because of recipient death. The conventional laparoscopic approach was used in 541 cases (75.88%), NOTES in 116 (16.9%), LESS in 55 (7.7%), and one mini open (0.14%). Two-thirds of the donors were females (478 cases). The mean donor age was 52.87 years (SD 10.93). Six donors (0.8%) were diagnosed beforehand with a small renal mass, which was removed before transplantation in bench surgery. The right kidney was removed in 17.8% of cases. Warm ischaemia time was higher in the NOTES and LESS groups. We had eight conversions. The global intraoperative and postoperative complication rates were 6.8% and 4.9%, respectively. None of the donors developed renal disease during follow-up (mean 3.68 years). Five-year recipient and graft survival rates were 98.8% and 96.8%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: MILDN techniques are safe for donors and grafts, with low complication.

Retroperitoneoscopy in urology: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: In the past years, several authors have focused on the role of retroperitoneoscopic laparoscopy in the treatment of urological diseases. Aim of our study is to systematically review the available literature on retro-peritoneoscopic laparoscopy in urology. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic review of the literature using the Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science databases for relevant articles published until June 2018 was performed using both the Medical Subjects Heading and free test protocols. The MeSH search was conducted by combining the following terms: "retroperitoneoscopy," "posterior laparoscopy," "retroperitoneoscopic." Only randomized clinical trials were included in the analysis. Risk of bias assessment and forest plots were used to summarize data. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Nine RCTs on simple, partial and radical nephrectomy, pyeloplasty, ureterolithotomy and nephrolithotomy comparing RP to other techniques were included in the analysis. Retroperitoneoscopic approach in simple or radical nephrectomy is to be considered a valid alternative to transperitoneal laparoscopic approach. Outcomes and safety profiles (6-8% conversion rate) are similar and the approach depends on surgeon's preferences. Randomized studies analyzing retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty showed better results in terms of perioperative morbidity (tramadol use: 147 vs. 179 mg, P=0.002) and return to normal activities when compared to either anterior laparoscopic either to minimally invasive open approach. Two randomized studies have confirmed the efficacy (stone-free rate: 94%) and safety (no Clavien-Dindo >II complications) of ureterolithotomy and nephrolithotomy (stone-free rate: 95%) in the management of large renal and ureteral stones. CONCLUSIONS: Retroperitoneoscopic approach in urological diseases is a valid alternative to the anterior approach. Evidence suggest lower morbidity for the retroperitoneoscopic approach however technical complexity may limit its widespread.