Robot-assisted laparoscopic retroperitoneal donor nephrectomy: a safe and efficient improvement.

PURPOSE: Reducing operative injuries is important in living donor nephrectomy. The robot-assisted transperitoneal approach has some advantages than traditional laparoscopic techniques. However, longer operation time and risks of abdominal complications indicate the need for improved techniques. The aim of this study is to present the robot-assisted laparoscopic retroperitoneal donor nephrectomy and evaluate its safety and feasibility. METHODS: This was a retrospective study. From June 2016 to December 2020, 218 living donors underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic retroperitoneal donor nephrectomy. Perioperative data such as operation time, warm ischemia time, length of stay and complications were collected and analyzed. To evaluate the feasibility of this surgical technique, the cumulative summation method was used to construct a learning curve. RESULTS: There were 60 male and 158 female donors aged 36-72 years, with an average age of 53.1 ± 6.8 years. Three patients (1.4%) were converted to open surgery. The mean operation time was 115.4 ± 41.9 min, the warm ischemia time was 206.6 ± 146.7 s, and the length of stay was 4.1 ± 1.4 days. Complications were reported in 22 patients (10.1%), three of whom (1.4%) had Clavien‒Dindo IIIa complications. No ileus occurred. No donors were readmitted. Four patients had delayed graft function. The cumulative summation curve showed that the number needed to reach proficiency was 33. The operation time and warm ischemia time after technical proficiency were 100.4 ± 21.6 min and 142.5 ± 50.7 s, respectively. CONCLUSION: Robot-assisted laparoscopic retroperitoneal donor nephrectomy is a safe and efficient technique that offers advantages of shorter operation time and no abdominal organ interference.

Predicting new-baseline glomerular filtration rate (NBGFR) after donor nephrectomy: validation of a split renal function (SRF)-based formula.

BACKGROUND: Accurate prediction of post-donor nephrectomy (DN) glomerular filtration rate is potentially useful for evaluating and counselling living kidney donors. Currently, there are limited tools to evaluate post-operative new-baseline glomerular filtration rate (NBGFR) in kidney donors. We aim to validate a conceptually simple formula based on split renal function (SRF) previously developed for radical nephrectomy patients. METHODS: Eighty-three consecutive patients who underwent DN from 2010 to 2016 were included. Pre-operative CT imaging and functional data including pre-DN baseline Global GFR (108.2 ± 13.2 mL/min/1.73m2) were included. Observed NBGFR was defined as the latest eGFR 3-12 months post-DN. SRF, defined as volume of the contralateral non-resected kidney normalised by total volume of kidneys, was determined from pre-operative cross-sectional imaging (49.2 ± 2.36%). The equation derived from Rathi et al. is as detailed: Predicted NBGFR = 1.24 × (Global GFR Pre-DN) x (SRF). RESULTS: The relationship between predicted NBGFR (66.0 ± 8.29 mL/min/1.73m2) and observed NBGFR (74.9 ± 16.4 mL/min/1.73m2) was assessed by evaluating correlation coefficients, bias, precision, accuracy, and concordance. The new SRF-based formula for NBGFR prediction correlated strongly with observed post-operative NBGFR (Pearson's r = 0.729) demonstrating minimal bias (median difference = 7.190 mL/min/1.73m2) with good accuracy (96.4% within ± 30%, 62.7% within ± 15%) and precision (IQR of bias = - 0.094 to 16.227). CONCLUSION: The SRF-based formula was also able to accurately discriminate all but one patient to an NBGFR of > 45 mL/min/1.73m2. We utilised the newly developed SRF-based formula for predicting NBGFR in a living kidney donor population. Counselling of donor post-operative renal outcomes may then be optimised pre-operatively.

Lean body mass in living kidney donors impacts postoperative renal function.

PURPOSE: A living donor kidney transplant is the optimal treatment for chronic renal impairment. Our objective is to assess if lean skeletal muscle mass and donor factors such as body mass index, hypertension, and age impact on renal function following donor nephrectomy. METHODS: Potential donors undergo CT angiography as part of their work-up in our institution. Using dedicated software (Horos®), standardized skeletal muscle area measured at the L3 vertebrae was calculated. When corrected for height, skeletal muscle index can be derived. Skeletal muscle mass index below predefined levels was classified as sarcopenic. The correlation of CT-derived skeletal muscle index and postoperative renal function at 12 months was assessed. Co-variables including donor gender, age, body mass index (BMI), and presence of pre-op hypertension were also assessed for their impact on postoperative renal function. RESULTS: 275 patients who underwent living donor nephrectomy over 10 years were included. Baseline pre-donation glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and renal function at one year post-op were similar between genders. 29% (n = 82) of patients met the criteria for CT-derived sarcopenia. Sarcopenic patients were more likely to have a higher GFR at one year post-op (69.3 vs 63.9 mL/min/1.73 m2, p < 0.001). The main factors impacting better renal function at one year were the presence of sarcopenia and younger age at donation. CONCLUSION: When selecting donors, this study highlights that patients with low skeletal mass are unlikely to underperform in terms of recovery of their renal function postoperatively at one year when compared to patients with normal muscle mass and should not be a barrier to kidney donation.

Robotic living donor nephrectomy is associated with reduced post-operative opioid use compared to hand-assisted laparoscopic approach.

BACKGROUND: Robotic donor nephrectomy (RDN) has emerged as a safe alternative to laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN). Having previously demonstrated comparable efficacy, this study aims to examine postoperative analgesia use (opioid and non-opioid) in the two groups. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of 300 living donor nephrectomies performed at our center, comparing 150 RDN's with a contemporary cohort of 150 hand-assisted LDN's. In addition to clinical and demographic information, data on postoperative inpatient opioid and non-opioid analgesia (from patient's arrival to the surgical floor after surgery till the time of discharge) was collected. Opioid dosages were standardized by conversion to morphine milligram equivalents (MME). All patients were managed post-operatively under a standardized ERAS pathway for living donor nephrectomy patients. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in donor age, gender, and BMI between RDN and LDN groups. Total post-operative opioid use (MME's) was significantly lower in RDN patients (RDN 27.1 vs. LDN 46.3; P < 0.0001). Breakdown of opioid use with post-operative (POD) day demonstrated significantly lower use in RDN group on POD1 (RDN 8.6 vs. LDN 17.0; P < 0.05), and POD2 (RDN 3.9 vs LDN 10; P < 0.05). RDN patients had a shorter post-operative length of stay (LOS) (RDN 1.69 days vs. LDN 1.98; P = 0.0003). There were no differences between groups in non-opioid medication use, complications, and readmission rates. CONCLUSION: RDN has comparable safety to hand-assist LDN and offers additional benefits of lower postoperative opioid requirement and a shorter hospital LOS.

Effective and safe implementation of robot-assisted donor nephrectomy by experienced laparoscopic surgeons.

BACKGROUND: In June 2021, the first robot-assisted donor nephrectomy (RADN) was performed at the Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), the Netherlands. The goal of this study was to investigate whether this procedure has been implemented safely and efficiently. METHODS: RADN was retrospectively compared to laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) performed during the same time period (June 2021 until November 2022). Patients were assigned to RADN depending on the availability of the da Vinci robot and surgical team. The studied endpoints were postoperative complications, operative time, estimated blood loss, warm ischemic time (WIT), and postoperative pain experience. For analysis, the Student's t-test and Chi-squared test were used for, respectively, continuous and categorical data. RESULTS: Forty RADN were compared to 63 LDN. Total insufflation time was significantly longer in RADN compared to LDN (188 min (169-214) versus 172 min (144-194); p = 0.02). Additionally, WIT was also found to be significantly higher in the robot-assisted group (04:54 min vs. 04:07 min; p < 0.01). No statistical differences were found in postoperative outcomes (eGFR of the recipient at 3-month follow-up, RADN 54.08 mL/min ±18.79 vs. LDN 56.41 mL/min ±16.82; p = 0.52), pain experience, and complication rate. CONCLUSION: RADN was safely and efficiently implemented at the LUMC. It's results were not inferior to laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Operative time and warm ischemic times were longer in RADN. This may relate to a learning curve effect. No clinically relevant effect on postoperative outcomes was observed.

The learning curve for modified hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic living donor nephrectomy.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to introduce our modified hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic living donor nephrectomy (HARPLDN) technique and define the learning curve. METHODS: One hundred thirty-eight kidney donors who underwent modified HARPLDN by the same surgeon between May 2015 and March 2022 were included. A cumulative sum (CUSUM) learning curve analysis was performed with the total operation time as the study outcome. RESULTS: In total, the mean operative time was 138.2 ± 32.1 min. The median warm ischemic time (WIT) and estimated blood loss were 90 s and 50 ml, respectively. The learning curve for the total operative time was best modeled as a second-order polynomial with the following equation: CUSUMOT (min) = (-0.09 case number2) + (12.88 case number) - 67.77 (R2 = 0.7875; p<0.05). The CUSUM learning curve included the following three unique phases: phase 1 (the initial 41 cases), representing the initial learning curve; phase 2 (the middle 43 cases), representing expert competence; and phase 3 (the final 54 cases), representing mastery. The overall 6-month graft survival rate was 99.3%, with 94.9% immediate onset of graft function without delayed graft function and 0.7% ureteral complications. CONCLUSIONS: Our modified method is safe and effective for living donor nephrectomy and has the advantages of a shorter operating time and optimized WIT. The surgeon can become familiar with the modified HARPLDN after 41 cases and effectively perform the next 97 cases.

Relationship between surgical difficulty and postoperative complications of hand-assisted laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy and establishment of prediction model.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have systematically explored the factors influencing the difficulty of hand-assisted laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy. To investigate the relationship between the difficulty of hand-assisted laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy and postoperative complications of the donor as well as the recipient, and then build a model for predicting the difficulty of surgery. METHODS: In this study, 60 patients who underwent hand-assisted laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy by the same surgeon from September 2022 to March 2024 were included as the modeling group. 20 patients operated on by another surgeon served as the external validation group. The subjective score (1-3 points) of surgical difficulty was used as the quantitative index of surgical difficulty. Pearson and Spearman correlation tests were used to explore the correlation between preoperative data and surgical difficulty scores of kidney donors, and finally built a prediction model through multiple linear regression analysis. RESULTS: With the increase in the difficulty of operation, both donors and recipients' complications were increased. Linear regression analysis showed that only the number of renal arteries, visceral fat thickness and MAP score were independent risk factors for the difficulty of hand-assisted laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy. The prediction equation is as follows: Difficulty score = 0.584*Number of renal arteries + 0.731*MAP score + 0.110*visceral fat thickness. CONCLUSIONS: Donors with higher surgical difficulty are more likely to have serious complications after surgery as well as the recipient. We also established a reliable prediction model for the difficulty of hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.

Comparison of analgesic effectiveness between nefopam and propacetamol in living kidney donors following rectus sheath block after hand-assisted living donor nephrectomy: a prospective, randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Nefopam and propacetamol are the most commonly used analgesics in postoperative multimodal analgesic regimens. Distinct mechanisms are involved in each drug's anti-nociceptive effects. No studies have compared pain relief efficacy between the two drugs in patients undergoing transplantation surgery. Here, we investigated whether the administration of nefopam or propacetamol to healthy living kidney donors who underwent rectus sheath block (RSB) for parietal pain could reduce the subsequent opioid dose necessary to produce adequate analgesia. METHODS: This prospective, randomized controlled trial included 72 donors undergoing elective hand-assisted living donor nephrectomy into two groups: propacetamol (n = 36) and nefopam (n = 36). Intraoperative RSB was performed in all enrolled donors. The primary outcome was the total volume of intravenous opioid-based patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) used on postoperative day 1 (POD 1). Additionally, the Numeric Rating Scale scores for flank (visceral) and umbilicus (parietal) pain at rest and during coughing were compared, and the Korean adaptation of the Quality of Recovery-15 Questionnaire (QoR-15 K) was evaluated on POD 1. RESULTS: Both groups had similar preoperative and intraoperative characteristics. On POD 1, the total amount of PCA infusion was significantly lower in the nefopam group than in the propacetamol group (44.5 ± 19.3 mL vs. 70.2 ± 29.0 mL; p < 0.001). This group also reported lower pain scores at the flank and umbilical sites and required fewer rescue doses of fentanyl in the post-anesthesia care unit. However, pain scores and fentanyl consumption in the ward were comparable between groups. The QoR-15 K scores were similar between groups; there were substantial improvements in breathing, pain severity, and anxiety/depression levels in the nefopam group. The incidences of postoperative complications, including sweating and tachycardia, were similar between groups. CONCLUSION: Compared with propacetamol, nefopam provides a greater analgesic effect for visceral pain and enhances the effects of blocks that reduce the opioid requirement in living kidney donors with parietal pain managed by RSB. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered prior to patient enrollment in the clinical trial database using the Clinical Research Information Service (registration no. KCT0007351 , Date of registration 03/06/2022).

Vascular closure devices in living-donor nephrectomy: a much-needed systematic review and meta-analysis focusing on safety.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety of vascular closure devices in living-donor nephrectomy (LDN), as staplers and non-transfixion techniques (polymer locking and metal clips) are the methods employed to secure the renal vessels during laparoscopic and robotic LDN, but the use of clips has come into question since the United States Food and Drug Administration and manufacturers issued a contraindication. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to assess the safety of vascular closure devices (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews [PROSPERO] registration: CRD42022364349). The PubMed, Scopus, the Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE), and the Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde (LILACS) databases were searched in September 2022. For comparative and non-comparative studies, incidence estimates and odds ratios (ORs), respectively, for the main variables regarding safety of vascular closure devices were pooled by using random effects meta-analyses. Quality assessment of the included comparative studies was conducted using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. RESULTS: Of the 863 articles obtained, data were retrieved from 44 studies, which included 42 902 patients. In non-comparative studies, the pooled estimate rates for device failure, severe haemorrhage rate, conversion to open surgery, and mortality were similar for both clips and staplers. Regarding the meta-analyses for comparative studies (three studies), there were no significant differences between the two groups for the severe haemorrhage rate (OR 0.57, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.18-1.75; P = 0.33), conversion to open surgery (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.08-1.54; P = 0.16), or death rate (OR 3.64, 95% CI 0.47-28.45; P = 0.22). Based on weak evidence, device failure was lower in the polymer clip group (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.23-0.75; P = 0.00). CONCLUSIONS: This study has confirmed that there is no evidence for the superiority of any vascular closure device in terms of safety in LDN. Standardised recommendations for vascular control in this context should be carefully designed and prospectively evaluated.

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy-Technique and peri-operative outcomes in an Australian transplant center.

INTRODUCTION: Demand for donor kidneys far exceeds the availability of organs from deceased donors. Living donor kidneys are an important part of addressing this shortfall, and laparoscopic nephrectomy is an important strategy to reduce donor morbidity and increase the acceptability of living donation. AIM: To retrospectively review the intraoperative and postoperative safety, technique, and outcomes of patients undergoing donor nephrectomy at a single tertiary hospital in Sydney, Australia. METHOD: Retrospective capture and analysis of clinical, demographic, and operative data for all living donor nephrectomies performed between 2007 and 2022 at a single University Hospital in Sydney, Australia. RESULTS: Four hundred and seventy-two donor nephrectomies were performed: 471 were laparoscopic, two of which were converted from laparoscopic to open and hand-assisted nephrectomy, respectively, and one (.2%) underwent primary open nephrectomy. The mean warm ischemia time was 2.8 min (±1.3 SD, median 3 min, range 2-8 min) and the mean length of stay (LOS) was 4.1 days (±1.0 SD). The mean renal function on discharge was 103 µmol/L (±23.0 SD). Seventy-seven (16%) patients had a complication with no Clavien Dindo IV or V complications seen. Outcomes demonstrated no impact of donor age, gender, kidney side, relationship to the recipient, vascular complexity; or surgeon experience, on complication rate or LOS. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is a safe and effective procedure with minimal morbidity and no mortality in this series.

Evaluating a unique enhanced recovery protocol in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: A single center experience.

INTRODUCTION: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols have been associated with a reduction in opioid consumption and a hastening in recovery in abdominal surgery. However, their impact on laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) has not been fully elucidated. The aim of this study is to evaluate opioid consumption and other relevant outcome measures before and after implementation of a unique LDN ERAS protocol. METHODS: 244 LDN patients were included in this retrospective cohort study. Forty-six underwent LDN prior to implementation of ERAS, whereas 198 patients received ERAS perioperative care. The primary outcome was daily oral morphine equivalent (OME) consumption averaged over the entire postoperative stay. Due to removal of preoperative oral morphine from the protocol partway through the study period, the ERAS group was further subdivided into morphine recipients and non-recipients for subgroup analysis. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), length of stay, pain scores, and other relevant measures. RESULTS: ERAS donors consumed significantly fewer average daily OMEs than Pre-ERAS donors (21.5 vs. 37.6, respectively; p < .0001). There were no statistically significant differences in OME consumption between morphine recipients and non-recipients. The ERAS group experienced less PONV (44.4% requiring one or more rescue antiemetic postoperatively, vs. 60.9% of Pre-ERAS donors; p = .008). CONCLUSIONS: A protocol pairing lidocaine and ketamine with a comprehensive approach to preoperative PO intake, premedication, intraoperative fluid management and postoperative pain control is associated with reduced opioid consumption in LDN.

Robotic donor nephrectomy: optimizing outcomes beyond the limitations of laparoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Robotic donor nephrectomy (RDN) has emerged as a safe alternate to laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN), offering improved visualization, instrument dexterity and ergonomics. There is still concern about how to safely transition from LDN to RDN. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of 150 consecutive living donor operations (75 LDN and 75 RDN) at our center, comparing the first 75 RDN's with the last 75 LDN's performed prior to the initiation of the robotic transplant program. Operative times and complications were used as surrogates of efficiency and safety, respectively, to estimate the learning curve with RDN. RESULTS: RDN was associated with a longer total operative time (RDN 182 vs LDN 144 min; P < 0.0001) but a significantly shorter post-operative length of stay (RDN 1.8 vs LDN 2.1 days; P = 0.0213). Donor complications and recipient outcomes were the same between both groups. Learning curve of RDN was estimated to be about 30 cases. CONCLUSIONS: RDN is a safe alternate to LDN with acceptable donor morbidity and no negative impact on recipient outcomes even during the early part of the RDN learning curve. Surgeon preferences for the robotic approach compared to traditional laparoscopy will require further scrutiny to improve ergonomics and operative efficiency.

[First experience of 3D-laparoscopy in donor nephrectomy]. / Nachal'nyi opyt ispol'zovaniya 3D-videosistem pri laparoskopicheskoi donorskoi nefrektomii.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the first experience of 3D imaging for laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study included 28 laparoscopic donor nephrectomies and 28 subsequent transplantations to related recipients. Of these, 14 laparoscopic donor nephrectomies were performed using 3D camera. The main intraoperative parameters and information about postoperative period in donors and recipients were compared with similar data on previous laparoscopic donor nephrectomies and kidney transplantations with traditional 2D imaging. There were 15 left-sided and 13 right-sided nephrectomies. Twenty and eight laparoscopic nephrectomies were performed via retroperitoneal and transperitoneal access, respectively. There were no significant between-group differences in age, sex ratio, BMI, side of surgery and number of renal arteries. RESULTS: Surgery time (119.28±9.18 and 124.85±7.49 min, respectively) and blood loss (106.78±16.12 and 119.28±19.79 ml, respectively) were similar. Laparoscopic nephrectomy with 3D imaging was followed by significantly shorter primary warm ischemia (2.41±0.79 and 3.23±0.57 min, respectively, p=0.004) and time of extracorporeal preparation of the transplant (back table) under cold preservation (27.21±5.42 and 32.36±5.33 min, respectively, p=0.02). CONCLUSION: Initial experience of video systems with 3D imaging in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy has not yet led to significant reduction of surgery time and improvement of transplant function compared to traditional 2D imaging. At the same time, there was a shorter period of primary warm ischemia and back table time. Further analysis is needed to assess possible benefits of 3D imaging in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.

Risk aversion in the use of complex kidneys in paired exchange programs: Opportunities for even more transplants?

This retrospective review of the largest United States kidney exchange reports characteristics, utilization, and recipient outcomes of kidneys with simple compared to complex anatomy and extrapolates reluctance to accept these kidneys. Of 3105 transplants performed, only 12.8% were right kidneys and 23.1% had multiple renal arteries. 59.3% of centers used fewer right kidneys than expected and 12.1% transplanted zero right kidneys or kidneys with more than 1 artery. Five centers transplanted a third of these kidneys (35.8% of right kidneys and 36.7% of kidneys with multiple renal arteries). 22.5% and 25.5% of centers currently will not entertain a match offer for a left or right kidney with more than one artery, respectively. There were no significant differences in all-cause graft failure or death-censored graft loss for kidneys with multiple arteries, and a very small increased risk of graft failure for right kidneys versus left of limited clinical relevance for most recipients. Kidneys with complex anatomy can be used with excellent outcomes at many centers. Variation in use (lack of demand) for these kidneys reduces the number of transplants, so systems to facilitate use could increase demand. We cannot know how many donors are turned away because perceived demand is limited.

Pregnancy after living kidney donation, a systematic review of the available evidence, and a review of the current guidance.

Understanding and communicating the risk of pregnancy complications post-living kidney donation is imperative as the majority of living kidney donors (LKD) are women of childbearing age. We aimed to identify all original research articles examining complications in post-donation pregnancies and compared the quality and consistency of related guidelines. We searched Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, society webpages, and guideline registries for English-language publications published up until December 18, 2020. Ninety-three articles were screened from which 16 studies were identified, with a total of 1399 post-donation pregnancies. The outcome of interest, post-donation pregnancy complications, was not calculable, and only a narrative synthesis of the evidence was possible. The absolute risk of pre-eclampsia increased from ~1%-3% pre-donation (lower than the general population) to ~4%-10% post-donation (comparable to the general population). The risks of adverse fetal and neonatal outcomes were no different between post-donation and pre-donation pregnancies. Guidelines and consensus statements were consistent in stating the need to inform LKDs of their post-donation pregnancy risk, however, the depth and scope of this guidance were variable. While the absolute risk of pregnancy complications remains low post-donation, a concerted effort is required to better identify and individualize risk in these women, such that consent to donation is truly informed.

Sequential liver and kidney living donors: Making the ultimate gift twice.

There are nearly 150 living donors in the United States who donated more than one solid organ. Using our divisional database, we found 20 individuals who donated a liver and a kidney at different times. We performed a retrospective chart review of these donors, studying their motivating factors, complications and outcomes. The donors included 11 (55%) males and nine females. Thirteen (65%) donated the kidney before the liver. Fourteen (70%) were nondirected donors at the first donation, and four of the six directed donors in the first donation became nondirected in the second donation. Seventeen (85%) were nondirected at the second donation. Common reasons for donating the second time were a good experience with the first donation and knowing that one can donate again. Outcomes and the incidence of early complications were not significantly different after the 2nd versus the 1st donation. All donors recovered and currently are doing well. Our results show a significant number of dual organ donors are nondirected and motivated by their strong desire to help. A positive experience with the 1st donation often was the driving factor for the 2nd. A history of previous organ donation did not negatively impact the 2nd donation.

The altruistic elderly, a valuable but unrecognised kidney donor group. A case report of an 85-year-old unspecified kidney donor.

BACKGROUND: Kidney transplantation is the definitive treatment for end stage renal disease (ESRD), offering improved quality of life and survival benefit over remaining on dialysis. There is, however, a prevailing significant mismatch between patients awaiting transplantation and available donor kidneys. Over time, initial stringent donor criteria have broadened and organs from extended criteria donors (ECDs) and older donors are now being accepted for transplantation. The spectrum of living donors has also undergone a change from close family members to an increasingly non-related, non-directed altruistic donors, newly classified as 'unspecified' donors. Unspecified elderly donors could be a potential untapped resource to expanding the kidney donor pool globally. CASE PRESENTATION: We present a case of an 85 year and 8 months old individual, who donated to an unrelated non-directed matched recipient in the national deceased donor transplant waiting list with excellent donor and recipient outcomes at 7 years. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge she is one of the oldest reported unspecified living kidney donors in the world to date. This case illustrates that elderly donors in good health can come forward to donate, knowing that it is safe and valuable. Once the immediate perioperative challenges after kidney donation are managed, elderly donors rarely encounter long term sequelae. We therefore report this case to increase awareness and refocus attention of transplant teams on elderly donors as a potential untapped group to help address the organ shortage problem in renal transplantation.

Long-Term Outcomes of Left versus Right Laparoscopic Living Donor Nephrectomy with Multiple Renal Arteries.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to compare the long-term graft outcomes of left-versus-right donor nephrectomy with multiple renal arteries (MRAs), and therefore creating a reference for the expansion of the potential living kidney donor pool. METHODS: Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy cases between May 2010 and October 2020 were included in this retrospective cross-sectional study. The data relating to donor and recipient demographics, surgical and anatomical characteristics, recipient, and graft status were retrieved and compared using nonparametric statistical methods and multivariate regression. Analyses were fit for survival factors. RESULTS: A total of 1,009 recipients were included in this retrospective cross-sectional study with their donors. 16.7% of the donors had been discovered to have more than one renal artery supplying the donated kidney. The acute rejection rate was 12.8%. Death-censored graft survival at postoperative year 5 for single renal artery (SRA) transplants was 89.6%, 89.5% for left-sided MRAs, and 88.2% for right-sided ones. CONCLUSIONS: Both right donor nephrectomy and left donor nephrectomy are safe procedures with no significant negatively impacted rates for neither survival nor complications of the recipients in the long-term, compared to SRA ones.

Robotic-assisted laparoscopy living donor nephrectomy: Technique and results of a monocentric retrospective series.

INTRODUCTION: Robot-assisted nephrectomy for living kidney donation (LKD) has been described in the literature as a safe and reproducible technique in high volume centers with extensive robotic surgery experience. Any surgical procedure in a healthy individual ought to be safe in regards to complications. The objective of this study was to evaluate the Robotic-assisted Living Donor Nephrectomy (RLDN) experience in a robotic surgery expert center. METHODS: This is a retrospective study from 11/2011 and 12/2019. In total, 118 consecutive Living Donor (LD) kidney transplants were performed at our institution. All the procedures were performed by robotic-assisted laparoscopic approach. Extraction was performed by iliac (IE), vaginal (VE) or umbilical extraction (UE). The left kidney was preferred even if the vascular anatomy was not modal. RESULTS: For donors: the median operative time was 120min with 50mL of blood loss. The median warm ischemia time was 4min, with a non-significant shorter duration with the UE (4min) in comparison with IE or VE (5min). Nine patients had postoperative complications including 1 grade II (blood transfusion) and 1 grade IIIb (vaginal bleeding after VE). None of our procedures were converted to open surgeries and no deaths were reported. For the recipients: 1.7% presented delayed graft function; their median GFR at 1 year was 61mL/min/1.73m2. CONCLUSION: RLDN in an expert center appears to be a safe technique. The advantages of the robot device in terms of ergonomy don't hamper the surgical outcomes. Donor, recipient and graft survivals seem comparable to the reported laparoscopic outcomes in the literature.

"Time is tissue"-A minireview on the importance of donor nephrectomy, donor hepatectomy, and implantation times in kidney and liver transplantation.

Donor organs are exposed to sequential temperature changes during the transplantation process. The role of donor warm ischemia and cold ischemia times on post-transplant outcomes has been extensively studied. Much less attention has been paid to the transient ischemia occurring during donor organ removal and implantation. Recently, it has become clear that prolonged donor nephrectomy and implantation time are independently associated with delayed graft function after kidney transplantation. In addition, implantation time correlates with post-transplant kidney graft function, histology, and survival. Similar detrimental associations of donor hepatectomy and implantation time with early allograft dysfunction, ischemic cholangiopathy, and graft and patient survival after liver transplantation have been demonstrated. This review details kidney and liver temperature changes occurring during procurement and transplantation. It summarizes the effects of the ischemia the kidney and liver sustain during these phases on short- and long-term post-transplant outcomes, advocating the standardized reporting of donor hepatectomy, donor nephrectomy, and implantation times in (inter)national registries. The review also explores strategies to protect the graft from this ischemic injury.