Platinum Priority – Collaborative Review – TransplantationEditorial by Eric Lechevallier on pp. 510–511 of this issueLaparoscopic Living-Donor Nephrectomy: Analysis of the Existing Literature
Introduction
In the half century that has passed since the first successful procedure, living-donor renal transplantation has shown superiority over cadaveric-donor renal transplantation. The advantages of live-donor renal transplantation are several. First, cold ischemia time is significantly shorter than in cadaveric-donor kidney transplantation and thus there is an almost complete absence of ischemic injury to the transplanted kidney. This results in a relative insensitivity to poor tissue matching and better long-term function [1]. Second, kidneys harvested from living donors represent perfect organs from perfectly healthy donors, ensuring a better graft and recipient survival compared with human leukocyte antigen (HLA)–matched cadaveric transplants [2]. Third, live-donor nephrectomy (LDN) reduces the waiting time for the recipient and therefore allows renal transplantation earlier, with the recipient still in better general condition and health.
LDN is unique in that it affects a healthy individual rather than a sick person. This makes it a very demanding and sophisticated surgical procedure. The safety and efficiency of the surgical technique are of utmost concern for the donor, the recipient, and the surgeon. Therefore, the surgical technique used must entail the lowest possible morbidity for the donor without compromising the functional outcome of the graft [3].
Since the early 1990s, laparoscopic techniques have been successfully adapted for various open urologic procedures, including laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy (LLDN) which was first described in 1995 [4], [5]. Because laparoscopy is generally considered to be less invasive than open surgical techniques, laparoscopy may be preferable if it can be demonstrated to achieve the same result with the same safety for the patient. While pure laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is feasible, some surgeons for reasons of safety prefer hand-assisted laparoscopy for LDN [6], with either a trans- or retroperitoneal approach.
With the introduction of laparoscopy into LDN, some centers have reported an increase in the numbers of renal transplants from living donors [2], [7], [8], [9]. For the United States, the United Network of Organ Sharing (UNOS) reported that in 2005, 83% of all LDNs were performed laparoscopically [10].
However, when laparoscopic donor nephrectomy was first introduced there was great concern that this procedure would be unsafe and that longer warm ischemia times (WITs) would jeopardize postoperative graft function. The purpose of the present systematic review was to evaluate the published literature regarding the relative results and complications of open LDN, purely laparoscopic (LLDN) and retroperitoneoscopic live-donor nephrectomy (RLDN), and the hybrid technique of hand-assisted LLDN (HALLDN).
Section snippets
Evidence acquisition
A literature search was performed on the Internet using the PubMed and Web of Science. The PubMed search included a “free text” protocol using the term living-donor nephrectomy across the “Title” and “Abstract” fields of the records. Subsequently, the following limits were used: humans and language (English). Particular attention was paid to articles focusing on indications, results, complications, and mortality for LDN. The searches of the Web of Science databases used the same free-text
Indications and exclusion criteria
Regarding the indications or exclusion criteria for donors for the different techniques of donor nephrectomy, there were no studies comparing these with relevant outcome parameters. Instead, most studies stated their exclusion criteria for the respective techniques based on surgeon opinion.
In general, selecting an appropriate donor for LDN required a careful evaluation and the involvement of various medical disciplines. Prospective donors needed to be of good general health and at low risk of
Conclusions
Our analysis suggests that based on published series, both techniques of donor nephrectomy have comparable complications and equal functional graft outcomes. Laparoscopic techniques of donor nephrectomy may have advantages in postoperative recovery and duration of pain, but these differences are difficult to quantify and difficult to assess in their impact on long-term outcome. Laparoscopic techniques of donor nephrectomy have reported disadvantages in terms of longer OPT and longer WIT.
References (83)
- et al.
Ten years of laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy: retrospect and prospect from the nephrologist’s point of view
Transplant Proc
(2007) - et al.
Early experience of a living donor kidney transplant program
Eur Urol
(2006) - et al.
Retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy: a retrospective, non-randomized comparison of early complications, donor and recipient outcome with the standard open approach
Eur Urol
(2005) - et al.
Outcome of laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy in 2007: national survey of transplantation centers in Japan
Transplant Proc
(2009) - et al.
Outcome of laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy: current status and trends in Japan
Transplant Proc
(2008) - et al.
Outcome of laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy in 2005: national survey of Japanese transplantation centers
Transplant Proc
(2006) - et al.
Laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy: a look at current trends and practice patterns at major transplant centers across the United States
J Urol
(2008) - et al.
Laparoscopic versus open live donor nephrectomy; the first randomized clinical trial
Transplant Proc
(2003) - et al.
Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy yields kidney with structure and function equivalent to those retrieved by open surgery
Transplant Proc
(2005) - et al.
Postoperative pain and convalescence in living kidney donors-laparoscopic versus open donor nephrectomy: a randomized study
Am J Transplant
(2006)
Open versus laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: a focus on the safety of donors and the need for a donor registry
J Urol
Quality of life, pain and return to normal activities following laparoscopic donor nephrectomy versus open mini-incision donor nephrectomy
J Urol
Early graft function in kidney transplantation: comparison between laparoscopic donor nephrectomy and open donor nephrectomy
Transplant Proc
Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy has equivalent early and late renal function outcomes compared with open donor nephrectomy
Urology
Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: a comparison with the conventional open approach
J Urol
Hand-assisted laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy versus open surgery: evaluation of surgical trauma and late graft function in 82 patients
Transplant Proc
Hand assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a comparison with the open approach
J Urol
Early and late residual renal function and surgical complications in living donors: a 15-year experience at a single institution
Transplant Proc
Quality of life of living kidney donors: a single-center experience
Transplant Proc
Hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: comparison to pure laparoscopic donor nephrectomy
Transplant Proc
Laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy: a single-center sequential experience comparing hand-assisted versus standard technique
Urology
Donor nephrectomy: a comparison of techniques and results of open, hand assisted and full laparoscopic nephrectomy
J Urol
Open donor, laparoscopic donor and hand assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a comparison of outcomes
J Urol
Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: the University of Maryland 6-year experience
J Urol
Outcome of renal transplantation with multiple versus single renal arteries after laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: a comparative study
Urology
Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: effects of learning curve on surgical outcomes
Transplant Proc
Complications of laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy and their management: the UCLA experience
Urology
Laparoscopic nephrectomy in the markedly obese living renal donor
Urology
Technique, indications and outcomes of pure laparoscopic right donor nephrectomy
J Urol
Novel technique for hand assisted laparoscopic right donor nephrectomy
J Urol
Laparoscopic live donor right nephrectomy: a new technique to maximize the length of the renal vein using a modified Endo GIA stapler
Eur Urol
Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: the University of Maryland 3-year experience
J Urol
Transperitoneal, hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: surveillance of renal function by immune monitoring
Transplant Proc
Laparoscopy in renal transplant patients
Urology
200 consecutive hand assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomies: evolution of operative technique and outcomes
J Urol
Incidence of ureteral strictures after laparoscopic donor nephrectomy
J Urol
mortality after living kidney donation, 1999-2001: survey of United States transplant centers
Am J Transplant
20 years or more of follow-up of living kidney donors
Lancet
Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy
Transplantation
Laparoscopic assisted live donor nephrectomy–a comparison with the open approach
Transplantation
Retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy: donor outcome and complication rate in comparison with three different techniques
World J Urol
Cited by (109)
Recommendations for living donor kidney transplantation
2022, NefrologiaMinimally Invasive and Open Donor Nephrectomy: Lessons Learned From a French Multicenter Experience
2022, Transplantation ProceedingsThe Prevailing Preference for Left Nephrectomy in Living Donor Transplantation Does Not Adversely Affect Long-Term Donor and Recipient Outcomes
2021, Transplantation ProceedingsCitation Excerpt :Unfortunately, this single-center cohort of donors did not include outcomes of left donor nephrectomy for comparison. Evidence suggests that the operative techniques have evolved and advanced over time [32,33]. In the majority of living kidney donors, the anatomy and the function of both kidneys are equivalent, and the left kidney is usually chosen for donation because of the longer and more durable left renal vein.