scholarly journals First Canadian experience with robotic laparoendoscopic single-site vs. standard laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy: A prospective comparative study

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (11) ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick P. Luke ◽  
Shahid Aquil ◽  
Bijad Alharbi ◽  
Hemant Sharma ◽  
Alp Sener
Keyword(s):  
Body Image ◽  
Functional Outcomes ◽  
Living Donor ◽  
Donor Nephrectomy ◽  
Single Site ◽  
Perioperative Outcomes ◽  
Analgesic Requirement ◽  
Laparoendoscopic Single Site ◽  
Living Donor Nephrectomy ◽  
Significant Difference

Introduction: We aimed to compare the outcomes of robotic laparoendoscopic single-site living donor nephrectomy (R-LESS LDN) vs. standard laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy (LLDN).Methods: Between October 2013 and November 2015, 39 patients were allocated to either standard LLDN (n=25) or R-LESS LDN (n=14). Patient demographics, perioperative outcomes, analgesic requirement, visual analogue scale of pain at postoperative days 1, 3, 7, and 30, and a health-related quality of life and body image questionnaire were prospectively collected.Results: There were no significant differences in demographics and intraoperative outcomes between the two cohorts. The R-LESS LDN cohort had lower analgesic requirement (p=0.002) and lower visual pain scores on days 1 and 3 (p=0.001). Additionally, body image and satisfaction scores in the R-LESS group were also superior compared to the LLDN cohort (p=0.008). There was no significant difference in the postoperative complications according to the Clavien-Dindo system. Recipient graft functional outcomes were equivalent.Conclusions: This is the first evidence that R-LESS LDN is safe and associated with comparable surgical and early functional outcomes compared to LLDN, while pain, donor body image, and satisfaction scores were improved compared to LLDN.

Laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) vs laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2014 ◽  
Vol 115 (2) ◽  
pp. 206-215 ◽  
Author(s):  
Riccardo Autorino ◽  
Luis Felipe Brandao ◽  
Bashir Sankari ◽  
Homayoun Zargar ◽  
Humberto Laydner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Living Donor ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Donor Nephrectomy ◽  
Single Site ◽  
Laparoendoscopic Single Site ◽  
Living Donor Nephrectomy

Safe Initiation of a Laparoendoscopic Single Site Living Donor Nephrectomy Program in a Small-volume Transplant Center

Urology ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 82 (2) ◽  
pp. 352-357 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shih-Chieh Jeff Chueh ◽  
Bashir R. Sankari ◽  
Lorie Lipscomb ◽  
Alice M. Jones ◽  
J. Stephen Jones
Keyword(s):  
Living Donor ◽  
Small Volume ◽  
Donor Nephrectomy ◽  
Single Site ◽  
Laparoendoscopic Single Site ◽  
Living Donor Nephrectomy ◽  
Transplant Center

Single-Site Laparoscopic Living Donor Nephrectomy Offers Comparable Perioperative Outcomes to Conventional Laparoscopic Living Donor Nephrectomy at a Higher Cost

2011 ◽  
Vol 91 (2) ◽  
pp. e16-e17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keri E. Lunsford ◽  
Matthew T. Harris ◽  
Kimberly N. Nicoll ◽  
Bradley H. Collins ◽  
Debra L. Sudan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Living Donor ◽  
Donor Nephrectomy ◽  
Single Site ◽  
Perioperative Outcomes ◽  
Conventional Laparoscopic ◽  
Living Donor Nephrectomy

Indications for additional port placement in laparoendoscopic single site (LESS) living donor nephrectomy

2011 ◽  
Vol 213 (3) ◽  
pp. S150
Author(s):  
Jinny S. Ha ◽  
Michael Phelan ◽  
Matthew Cooper ◽  
Sameh Fayek ◽  
Raghava Munivenkatappa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Living Donor ◽  
Donor Nephrectomy ◽  
Single Site ◽  
Port Placement ◽  
Laparoendoscopic Single Site ◽  
Living Donor Nephrectomy ◽  
Additional Port

scholarly journals Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Living Donor Nephrectomy: The University of Florence Technique

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sergio Serni ◽  
Alessio Pecoraro ◽  
Francesco Sessa ◽  
Luca Gemma ◽  
Isabella Greco ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Surgical Complications ◽  
Functional Outcomes ◽  
Living Donor ◽  
Donor Nephrectomy ◽  
Perioperative Outcomes ◽  
Living Donor Nephrectomy ◽  
Da Vinci Si ◽  
Complications Rate ◽  
University Of Florence ◽  
The University

Objective: To provide a step-by-step overview of the University of Florence technique for robotic living donor nephrectomy (LDN), focusing on its technical nuances and perioperative outcomes.Methods: A dedicated robotic LDN program at our Institution was codified in 2012. Data from patients undergoing robotic LDN from 2012 to 2019 were prospectively collected. All robotic LDNs were performed by a highly experienced surgeon, using the da Vinci Si robotic platform in a three-arm configuration. In this report we provide a detailed overview of our surgical technique for robotic LDN. The main objective of the study was to evaluate the technical feasibility and safety of the technique, including perioperative surgical complications rate and mid-term functional outcomes.Results: Overall, 36 patients undergoing robotic LDNs were included in the study. Of these, 28 (78%) were left LDNs. Median (IQR) donor pre-operative eGFR was 88 (75.6–90) ml/min/1.73 m2. In all cases, robotic LDN was completed without need of conversion. The median (IQR) overall operative time was 230 (195–258) min, while the median console time was 133 (IQR 117-166) min. The median (IQR) warm ischemia time was 175 (140–255) s. No intraoperative adverse events or 90-d major surgical complications were recorded. At a median (IQR) follow-up of 24 months (IQR 11-46), median (IQR) eGFR patients undergoing in living donor nephrectomy was 57.4 (47.9; 63.9) ml/min/1.73 m2.Conclusions: In our experience, robotic LDN is technically feasible and safe. The use of robotic surgery for LDN may provide distinct advantages for surgeons while ensuring optimal donors' perioperative and functional outcomes.

scholarly journals Comparison of Transperitoneal and Retroperitoneal Laparoendoscopic Single-site Donor Nephrectomy

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chung-Yu Lin ◽  
Ching-Chia Li ◽  
Hung-Lung Ke ◽  
Wen-Jeng Wu ◽  
Yii-Her Chou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Postoperative Pain ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Warm Ischemia ◽  
Donor Nephrectomy ◽  
Warm Ischemia Time ◽  
Single Site ◽  
Perioperative Outcomes ◽  
Ischemia Time ◽  
Laparoendoscopic Single Site

Abstract Background: Laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy is the standard technique at high-volume renal transplant centers. Laparoendoscopic single-site donor nephrectomy (LESS-DN) is a relatively novel minimally invasive surgery, which was differed to transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches. We present a retrospective analysis of our single-institution donor nephrectomy series comparing the transperitoneal to retroperitoneal LESS-DN with regards to operative outcomes.Materials and Methods: Ten patients who underwent LESS-DN from 2017–2019 were enrolled at our center. The same surgeon performed all cases. The two approaches were compared retrospectively and evaluated for differences in perioperative outcomes, including operation time, console time, blood loss, graft warm ischemia time, postoperative pain, length of stay (LOS), wound size, postoperative pain, and renal function post LESS-DN at less than one year.Results: Total operating time (315 ± 82.69 vs. 191 ± 24.9 min, p = 0.016), console time (224 ± 74.15 vs. 110 ± 19.84 min, p = 0.016), and LOS (8.4 ± 1.82 vs. 4.8 ± 1.10 days, p = 0.013) were significantly longer in the transperitoneal group. The wound size (44 ± 3.81 vs. 68.2 ± 13.5 mm, p = 0.038) was significantly smaller in the transperitoneal group. There was no significant difference in other parameters, including blood loss, warm ischemia time, and postoperative pain from day one to day three.Conclusions: Retroperitoneal LESS-DN results in similar perioperative outcomes as transperitoneal LESS-DN without compromising donor safety, and while providing a faster operation time, console time, shorter LOS, and a trend toward a shorter warm ischemia time.

scholarly journals Right Kidney Mini-Invasive Living Donor Nephrectomy: A Safe and Efficient Alternative

2020 ◽  
Vol 104 (11-12) ◽  
pp. 859-864
Author(s):  
Lucas Broudeur ◽  
Georges Karam ◽  
Reshma Rana Magar ◽  
Pascal Glemain ◽  
Thomas Loubersac ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Living Donor ◽  
Left Kidney ◽  
Graft Function ◽  
Donor Nephrectomy ◽  
Safe Procedure ◽  
Conversion To Open Surgery ◽  
Living Donor Nephrectomy ◽  
Donor Safety ◽  
Living Donor Transplantation ◽  
Significant Difference

<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.

scholarly journals Donor Complications Following Laparoscopic Compared to Hand-Assisted Living Donor Nephrectomy: An Analysis of the Literature

2010 ◽  
Vol 2010 ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Whitney R. Halgrimson ◽  
Jeffrey Campsen ◽  
M. Susan Mandell ◽  
Mara A. Kelly ◽  
Igal Kam ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Postoperative Complications ◽  
Assisted Living ◽  
Living Donor ◽  
Intraoperative Complications ◽  
Laparoscopic Approach ◽  
Donor Nephrectomy ◽  
Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy ◽  
Living Donor Nephrectomy ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Large Center

There are two approaches to laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) and hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN). In this study we report the operative statistics and donor complications associated with LDN and HALDN from large-center peer-reviewed publications.Methods. We conducted PubMed and Ovid searches to identify LDN and HALDN outcome studies that were published after 2004.Results. There were 37 peer-reviewed studies, each with more than 150 patients. Cumulatively, over 9000 patients were included in this study. LDN donors experienced a higher rate of intraoperative complications than HALDN donors (5.2% versus. 2.0%, ). Investigators did not report a significant difference in the rate of major postoperative complications between the two groups (LDN 0.5% versus HALDN 0.7%, ). However, conversion to open procedures from vascular injury was reported more frequently in LDN procedures (0.8% versus 0.4%, ).Conclusion. At present there is no evidence to support the use of one laparoscopic approach in preference to the other. There are trends in the data suggesting that intraoperative injuries are more common in LDN while minor postoperative complications are more common in HALDN.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document