European Association of Urology Guidelines on Renal Transplantation: Update 2018.

CONTEXT: The European Association of Urology (EAU) panel on renal transplantation (RT) has released an updated version of the RT guidelines. OBJECTIVE: To present the 2018 EAU guidelines on RT. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A broad and comprehensive scoping exercise was performed, encompassing all areas of RT guidelines published between January 1, 2007, and May 31, 2016. Databases covered by the search included Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Libraries. Previous guidelines were updated, and levels of evidence and grades of recommendation were assigned. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: It is strongly recommended to offer pure or hand-assisted laparoscopic/retroperitoneoscopic surgery as the preferential technique for living donor nephrectomy. Decisions on the acceptance of a donor organ should not be based on histological findings alone since this might lead to an unnecessarily high rate of discarded grafts. For ureterovesical anastomosis, a Lich-Gregoir-like extravesical technique protected by a ureteral stent is the preferred technique for minimisation of urinary tract complications. It is also strongly recommended to perform initial rejection prophylaxis with a combination therapy comprising a calcineurin inhibitor (preferably tacrolimus), mycophenolate, steroids, and an induction agent (either basiliximab or anti-thymocyte globulin). The long version of the guidelines is available at the EAU website (http://uroweb.org/guidelines). CONCLUSIONS: These abridged EAU guidelines present updated information on the clinical and surgical management of RT for incorporation into clinical practice. PATIENT SUMMARY: The European Association of Urology has released the renal transplantation guidelines. The implementation of minimally invasive surgery for organ retrieval and the latest evidence on transplant surgery as well as on immunosuppressive regimens are key factors for minimisation of rejection and achievement of long-term graft survival.

Hand-assisted living-donor nephrectomy: a retrospective comparison of two techniques.

BACKGROUND: Living-donor nephrectomy (LDN) is challenging, as surgery is performed on healthy individuals. Minimally invasive techniques for LDN have become standard in most centers. Nevertheless, numerous techniques have been described with no consensus on which is the superior approach. Both hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic (HARS) and hand-assisted laparoscopic (HALS) LDNs are performed at Zurich University Hospital. The aim of this study was to compare these two surgical techniques in terms of donor outcome and graft function. METHOD: Retrospective single-center analysis of 60 consecutive LDNs (HARS n = 30; HALS n = 30) from June 2010 to May 2012, including a one-year follow-up of the recipients. RESULTS: There was no mortality in either group and little difference in the overall complication rates. Median warm ischemia time (WIT) was significantly shorter in the HARS group. The use of laxatives and the incidence of postoperative vomiting were significantly greater in the HALS group. There was no difference between right- and left-sided nephrectomies in terms of donor outcome and graft function. CONCLUSIONS: Both techniques appear safe for both donors and donated organs. The HARS technique is associated with a shorter WIT and a reduced incidence of postoperative paralytic ileus. Therefore, we consider HARS LDN a valuable alternative to HALS LDN.

Learning curve for hand-assisted laparoscopic D2 radical gastrectomy.

AIM: To describe the learning curves of hand-assisted laparoscopic D2 radical gastrectomy (HALG) for the treatment of gastric cancer. METHODS: The HALG surgical procedure consists of three stages: surgery under direct vision via the port for hand assistance, hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery, and gastrointestinal tract reconstruction. According to the order of the date of surgery, patients were divided into 6 groups (A-F) with 20 cases in each group. All surgeries were performed by the same group of surgeons. We performed a comprehensive and in-depth retrospective comparative analysis of the clinical data of all patients, with the clinical data including general patient information and intraoperative and postoperative observation indicators. RESULTS: There were no differences in the basic information among the patient groups (P > 0.05). The operative time of the hand-assisted surgery stage in group A was 8-10 min longer than the other groups, with the difference being statistically significant (P = 0.01). There were no differences in total operative time between the groups (P = 0.30). Postoperative intestinal function recovery time in group A was longer than that of other groups (P = 0.02). Lengths of hospital stay and surgical quality indicators (such as intraoperative blood loss, numbers of detected lymph nodes, intraoperative side injury, postoperative complications, reoperation rate, and readmission rate 30 d after surgery) were not significantly different among the groups. CONCLUSION: HALG is a surgical procedure that can be easily mastered, with a learning curve closely related to the operative time of the hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery stage.

Assessment of joystick and wrist control in hand-held articulated laparoscopic prototypes.

BACKGROUND: Various steerable instruments with flexible distal tip have been developed for laparoscopic surgery. The problem of steering such instruments, however, remains a challenge, because no study investigated which control method is the most suitable. This study was designed to examine whether thumb (joystick) or wrist control method is designated for prototypes of steerable instruments by means of motion analysis. METHODS: Five experts and 12 novices participated. Each participant performed a needle-driving task in three directions (right → left, up → down, and down → up) with two prototypes (wrist and thumb) and a conventional instrument. Novices performed the tasks in three sessions, whereas experts performed one session only. The order of performing the tasks was determined by Latin squares design. Assessment of performance was done by means of five motion analysis parameters, a newly developed matrix for assigning penalty points, and a questionnaire. RESULTS: The thumb-controlled prototype outperformed the wrist-controlled prototype. Comparison of the results obtained in each task showed that regarding penalty points, the up → down task was the most difficult to perform. CONCLUSIONS: The thumb control is more suitable for steerable instruments than the wrist control. To avoid uncontrolled movements and difficulties with applying forces to the tissue while keeping the tip of the instrument at the constant angle, adding a "locking" feature is necessary. It is advisable not to perform the needle driving task in the up → down direction.

Technical proficiency in hand-assisted laparoscopic colon and rectal surgery: determining how many cases are required to achieve mastery.

OBJECTIVE: To determine how many cases are required to achieve technical proficiency for hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS). DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING: Tertiary care hospital. PATIENTS: Using a prospective database, all HALS colorectal resections from 2003 to 2009 by 2 surgeons (A and B) were reviewed. Over 6 years, surgeons A and B performed 397 and 322 cases. INTERVENTIONS: Change-Point Analysis (CUSUM) was used to define the number of cases required to effect improvement in operative time. Cases before and after the change point were considered as being in the "learning period" and "skilled period." MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Operative time; short-term outcomes. RESULTS: The change point occurred after 108 and 105 cases for surgeons A and B, respectively. The learning period and skilled period were similar with respect to age, sex, body mass index, prior abdominal surgery, medical comorbidities, and American Society of Anesthesiologists class. Mean overall operative time decreased from 263 to 185 minutes (P < .001). The decrease in mean operative duration for specific resections were as follows: right colectomy, 35 minutes (P = .003); left colectomy, 63 minutes (P = .006); sigmoid colectomy, 63 minutes (P < .001); anterior resection, 70 minutes (P < .001); coloanal anastomosis, 52 minutes (P = .003); subtotal colectomy, 75 minutes (P < .001); and total proctocolectomy with ileal reservoir, 80 minutes (P < .001). Intraoperative complications and conversion rate were similar, but overall morbidity, infectious complications, readmissions, and length of stay were all significantly (P < .05) lower during the skilled period. CONCLUSIONS: For HALS colorectal resection, technical proficiency occurred after approximately 105 cases, and increased surgeon experience resulted in improved short-term outcomes. These data suggest that the learning curve for HALS colorectal resection will extend beyond fellowship training for many colorectal surgeons.