scholarly journals LAPAROSCOPIC LIVING DONOR NEPHRECTOMY IN INDONESIA

2014 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Chaidir Arif Mochtar ◽  
Irfan Wahyudi ◽  
Bagus Baskoro

Objective: To evaluate and analyze variables related to the surgical and direct post-operative outcomes of our initial experience of laparoscopic living donor nephrectomies (LLDN). Material & methods: This retrospective analysis describes the first 10 laparoscopic nephrectomies in living donors performed in Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital. All surgeries were performed by the same surgical team. Variables related to the surgical and post-operative outcome and complications in donors were evaluated and analyzed.Results: The average age of the donors was 31.8 years with male : female ratio of 7 : 3. Thirty percent of them were family related to the recipient. The left kidney was extracted from all patients and multiple renal vessels were found in one cases. The mean operation time was 321.9 ± 27 min, first warm ischemia time was 9.37 ± 3.34 min and estimated blood loss was 270 ± 182.87ml. The hospital stay was 4.1 ± 1.3 days, VAS in the first day post surgery was 3 ± 1 with epidural analgesia needed for 1.8 ± 0.6 days, and drain was kept in for 2.8 ± 1.2 days while urethral cathether for 2.4 ± 1.2. Time to return to work was 16 ± 8.4 days. Conclusion: LLDN results in acceptable blood loss,less post-operative pain, short hospital stay and short time to return to work for the donors, therefore promising to be the gold standard among living donor nephrectomy surgical options.Keywords: Laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy,renal transplantation, Indonesia.

2012 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Chaidir A. Mochtar ◽  
Irfan Wahyudi ◽  
Nur Rasyid ◽  
Arry Rodjani ◽  
Ponco Birowo ◽  
...  

Objective: To report our first experience laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy (LLDN). Material & Method: A 37 year-old man was planned for the living-donor transplantation. The recipient was a 63 year-old man sufferingfrom end stage renal disease, and hypertensive heart disease. The donor and recipient were allowed for positive qualification evaluated preoperatively. We applied a transperitoneal approach for the left kidney. Results: The operation time was 300 minutes and the estimated blood loss was 600 mL. The first warm ischemia time was 15 minutes and 24 seconds. There were no major intraoperative and postoperative complications. The donor began oral intake and mobilization within 10 hours and was hospitalized for 4 days. The recipient’s serum creatinine levels reached near baseline levels (1,5 mg/dL) at day 6. Conclusion: LLDN is technically feasible in Indonesia and may increase the rate of kidney donation in Indonesia due to the minimally invasive nature of the procedure.Keywords: Renal transplantation, laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy, Indonesia.


2018 ◽  
Vol 24 (8) ◽  
pp. 6238-6241
Author(s):  
Karina Evelyn Sidabutar ◽  
A. R Hamid ◽  
Nur Rasyid ◽  
Arry Rodjani ◽  
Irfan Wahyudi ◽  
...  

To assess the reliability and safety of polymer clips for vascular control in laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy. We collected data retrospectively from all laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy performed in Ciptomangunkusumo Hospital, Jakarta, Indonesia. Polymer clips was applied for both renal artery and renal vein ligation. The incidence of polymer clip failure was recorded accordingly. Between November 2011 and August 2015, we evaluated 260 patients of laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy in a center. The left kidney was harvested from 219 (84.5%) patients. Multiple renal arteries was discovered in 25 (9.6%) patients. For all cases we used polymer clips to control the renal artery (XL and L) and renal vein (XL). We placed 2 clips as proximal as possible to the aorta or caval vein. The median estimated blood loss was 100 (20–2000) ml. A blood loss of 2000 ml occurred in one/case of clip dislodgement. The median time to clip (the length of time from first incision to renal artery clamping) was 155 (68–318) minutes. The median warm ischemic time (the length of time from clamping to cold ischemic time) was 3.01 (1.22–30.43) minutes. There were 10 cases with warm ischemic time of more than 10 minutes. Three cases (1.2%) of clip failures occurred. One patient needed conversion to open surgery to achieve adequate vascular control. Two patients experienced improper locking of the polymer clips, necessitating clips reapplication. The use of polymer clips for vascular control in laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy is reliable and safe when properly applied. However the evaluation of renal vascular stump after harvesting donor kidney is an important step to ensure the right placement and safety of polymer clips.


2020 ◽  
Vol 104 (11-12) ◽  
pp. 859-864
Author(s):  
Lucas Broudeur ◽  
Georges Karam ◽  
Reshma Rana Magar ◽  
Pascal Glemain ◽  
Thomas Loubersac ◽  
...  

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Right kidney living donor transplantation is considered more difficult and associated with more complications. The objective was to evaluate donor safety and graft function of right hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN). <b><i>Methods:</i></b> A total of 270 consecutive HALDN procedures have been performed in our institution up to April 2017. We retrospectively compared the outcomes of right-sided nephrectomy (R-HALDN) to left-sided nephrectomy (L-HALDN) to evaluate donor safety and graft function of R-HALDN. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Sixty-seven right kidneys were removed for functional asymmetry in favour of left kidney (35/67) or left kidney multiple arteries (28/67). Among the donors, neither conversion to open surgery nor preoperative blood transfusion was necessary. There was no significant difference in operative time, compared to L-HALDN group (170 ± 37 min vs. 171 ± 32 min; <i>p</i> value = 0.182). Warm ischaemia time was significantly longer for R-HALDN (4.0 ± 1.6 min vs. 3.0 ± 1.7 min; <i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.001). There was no significant difference in terms of post-operative complications and serum Cr levels. Among the recipients, there were no graft venous thrombosis. There was no significant difference in delayed graft function (3 for R-HALDN group and 8 for L-HALDN group; <i>p</i> value = 0.847), serum Cr levels, and graft survival. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> R-HALDN is a safe procedure for kidney donors, with excellent graft function for the recipients, compared to L-HALDN.


2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (7-8) ◽  
pp. 253 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christie Rampersad ◽  
Premal Patel ◽  
Joshua Koulack ◽  
Thomas McGregor

<p><strong>Introduction:</strong> Laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy is the standard of care at high-volume renal transplant centres, with benefits over the open approach well-documented in the literature. Herein, we present a retrospective analysis of our single-institution donor nephrectomy series comparing the mini-open donor nephrectomy (mini-ODN) to the laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) with regards to operative, donor, and recipient outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods:</strong> From 2007‒2011, there were 89 cases of mini-ODN, at which point our centre transitioned to LDN; 94 cases were performed from 2011‒2014. In total, 366 patients were reviewed, including donor and recipient pairs. Donor and recipient demographics, intraoperative data, postoperative donor recovery, recipient graft outcomes, and financial cost were assessed comparing the surgical approaches.</p><p><strong>Results:</strong> We demonstrate a reduced estimated blood loss (347.83 vs. 90.3 cc), lower intraoperative complication rate (4 vs. 11) and shorter length of hospital stay (2.4 vs. 3.3 days) for patients in the LDN group. Operative time was significantly longer for the LDN group (108.4 vs. 165.9 minutes), although this did not translate to a longer warm ischemia time (mean 2.0 minutes for each group). The rate of delayed graft function and recipient 12-month creatinine were comparable for ODN and LND. Overall cost of LDN was $684 higher for an uncomplicated admission.</p><p><strong>Conclusions:</strong> Despite a longer surgical time and higher upfront cost, our study supports that LDN yields several advantages over the mini-ODN, with a lower estimated blood loss, fewer intraoperative complications, and shorter length of hospital stay, all while maintaining excellent renal allograft outcomes.</p>


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ngọc Khánh Trần ◽  

Abstract Introduction: Laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy (LLDN), which is standard technique, has more advantages than open nephrectomy. Today, there are two approachs in LLDN, including retroperitoneal and transperitoneal. We evaluate results of modified retroperitoneal and transperitoneal laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy, give selection criteria as well as the advantages and disadvantages of each approach. Materials and Methods: Prospective study of 84 voluntary living kidney donors who underwent modified retroperitoneal and transperitoneal laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy (RPLDN) and (TPLDN) in Transplant Center, Hue Central Hospital, between 1/2018 and 6/2020. Results: The difference in BMI among two groups was roughly 2 (Kg/m2) (p<0,05). The perioperative, postoperative complication rate and the conversion rate to open surgery were similar between the two groups. The surgical time and blood loss was significantly lower in RPLDN (139,38 ± 24,73 min, 46,35 ± 13,32 ml) than in TPLDN (174,39 ± 40,86 min, 67,92 ± 30,76 ml) (p<0,05). Comparing characteristics such as warm ischemic time, hospital stays, flatulence time, removal time of drainage and urinary catheter indicated that they were similar between the two groups (p>0,05). Conclusion: Both RPLDN and TPLDN are safe and effective procedures. RPLDN should be conducted in patients with low BMI (< 23 kg/m2), previous abdominal operations and wide flank space. Moreover, modified RPLDN has shorter operative time, less blood loss and good esthetic aspect comparing to TPLDN. Key word: Retroperitoneal laparoscopic, transperitoneal laparoscopic, nephrectomy living donor. Tóm tắt Đặt vấn đề: Phẫu thuật nội soi (PTNS) lấy thận ghép trên người hiến sống được xem là phương pháp có nhiều ưu điểm hơn so với mổ mở kinh điển. Hiện nay, có 2 phương pháp tiếp cận chính là sau phúc mạc (RPLDN) và xuyên phúc mạc (TPLDN). Chúng tôi đánh giá kết quả PTNS sau phúc mạc có cải biên và phẫu thuật xuyên phúc mạc để lấy thận ghép trên người hiến sống, đưa ra các tiêu chuẩn chọn lựa cho mỗi phương pháp và ưu nhược điểm của mỗi phương pháp. Phương pháp nghiên cứu: Nghiên cứu tiến cứu 84 người bệnh (NB) hiến thận tự nguyện được phẫu thuật lấy thận nội soi sau phúc mạc cải biên và xuyên phúc mạc tại Trung tâm Ghép tạng, Bệnh viện Trung ương Huế từ tháng 1/2018 đến tháng 6/2020. Kết quả: Chỉ số BMI có sự khác biệt giữa 2 nhóm RPLDN và TPLDN khoảng 2 (Kg/m2) (p<0,05). Tỷ lệ biến chứng trong mổ, tỷ lệ biến chứng sau mổ là tương đương nhau giữa 2 nhóm. Thời gian phẫu thuật và lượng máu mất của phương pháp nội soi sau phúc mạc là thấp hơn (139,38 ± 24,73 phút, 46,35 ± 13,32 ml) đáng kể so với xuyên phúc mạc (174,39 ± 40,86 phút, 67,92 ± 30,76 ml) (p<0,05). Thời gian thiếu máu nóng, thời gian hậu phẫu, thời gian có trung tiện, thời gian rút ống dẫn lưu, thời gian rút sonde tiểu, nghiên cứu của chúng tôi cũng cho thấy sự tương đồng giữa 2 nhóm (p>0,05). Kết luận: PTNS sau và xuyên phúc mạc là 2 phương pháp an toàn và hiệu quả trong lấy thận ghép trên người hiến sống. Nội soi sau phúc mạc nên áp dụng cho các ca hiến có chỉ số BMI thấp (< 23 kg/m2), khoảng hông lưng rộng hay có phẫu thuật vùng bụng trước đó. PTNS sau phúc mạc cải biên có thời gian phẫu thuật nhanh hơn, ít mất máu hơn nhưng ít thẩm mỹ hơn xuyên phúc mạc. Từ khóa: Nội soi sau phúc mạc, nội soi xuyên phúc mạc, lấy thận người hiến sống.


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. 1195
Author(s):  
Spyridon Vernadakis ◽  
Smaragdi Marinaki ◽  
Maria Darema ◽  
Ioanna Soukouli ◽  
Ioannis El. Michelakis ◽  
...  

Since its introduction in 1995, laparoscopic nephrectomy has emerged as the preferred surgical approach for living donor nephrectomy. Given the ubiquity of the surgical procedure and the need for favorable outcomes, as it is an elective operation on otherwise healthy individuals, it is imperative to ensure appropriate preoperative risk stratification and anticipate intraoperative challenges. The aim of the present study was to compare peri-and postoperative outcomes of living kidney donors (LD), who had undergone laparoscopic nephrectomy (LDN), with a control group of those who had undergone open nephrectomy (ODN). Health-related quality of life (QoL) was also assessed using the validated SF-36 questionnaire. Data from 252 LD from a single transplant center from March 2015 to December 2020 were analyzed retrospectively. In total, 117 donors in the LDN and 135 in the ODN groups were assessed. Demographics, type of transplantation, BMI, duration of surgery, length of hospital stay, peri- and postoperative complications, renal function at discharge and QoL were recorded and compared between the two groups using Stata 13.0 software. There was no difference in baseline characteristics, nor in the prevalence of peri-and postoperative complications, with a total complication rate of 16% (mostly minor, Clavien–Dindo grade II) in both groups, while a different pattern of surgical complications was noticed between them. Duration of surgery was significantly longer in the ODN group (median 240 min vs. 160 min in LDN, p < 0.01), warm ischemia time was longer in the LDN group (median 6 min vs.2 min in ODN, p < 0.01) and length of hospital stay shorter in the LDN group (median 3 days vs. 7 days in ODN). Conversion rate from laparoscopic to open surgery was 2.5%. There was a drop in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at discharge of 36 mL/min in the LDN and 32 mL/min in the ODN groups, respectively (p = 0.03). No death, readmission or reoperation were recorded. There was a significant difference in favor of LDN group for each one of the eight items of the questionnaire (SF1–SF8). As for the two summary scores, while the total physical component summary (PCS) score was comparable between the two groups (57.87 in the LDN group and 57.07 in the ODN group), the mental component summary (MCS) score was significantly higher (62.14 vs. 45.22, p < 0.001) in the LDN group. This study provides evidence that minimally invasive surgery can be performed safely, with very good short-term outcomes, providing several benefits for the living kidney donor, thereby contributing to expanding the living donor pool, which is essential, especially in countries with deceased-donor organ shortage.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document