BACKGROUND: Kidney transplantation (KTx) is considered to be the treatment of choice for end stage renal disease. One of the most challenging dilemmas in KTx is the shortage of suitable organs. The live donor nephrectomy is considered a unique operation performed on healthy donors, which provides a superior outcome in the recipients. Several surgical techniques have been developed so far to minimize donor postoperative complications as much as possible without compromising the quality of the kidney. The development of a minimally invasive surgery, laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (LDN), was based on this concept. MATERIALS AND METHODS: By searching the pubmed, we reviewed the most evidence based clinical studies specifically randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses to give an overview of the efficacy and safety of LDN versus ODN. RESULTS: The advantages of a LDN vs. a conventional open donor nephrectomy (ODN) are a smaller incision, better wound cosmetics, a lower rate of incisional hernia and adhesion, less postoperative pain, shorter hospitalization, and earlier return to work. Some concerns are longer operative and warm ischemic times, long-term learning curve for surgeons, and the risk of more serious complications than during an ODN. CONCLUSION: Overall, the review of literature shows that a LDN provides less postoperative pain, a shorter hospital stay, a shorter period of rehabilitation, and earlier return to normal work and physical activities in comparison to the conventional open flank nephrectomy but is comparable to the mini muscle splitting approach. The complication rate is generally lower in centers accustomed to performing LDNs; however, complications can be life threatening and could impose significant costs to the health system. Weighing the longer operation and warm ischemic time, as well as the risk of more serious complications against the advantages of a LDN mandates a precise indication. The risk-benefit assessment for choosing one procedure should be done meticulously. Even though the short-term graft function in both techniques is comparable, there is a lack of enough long-term outcome analyses. Finally, in any transplant center, the cost of the laparoscopic procedure should be considered.
BACKGROUND: Kidney transplantation (KTx) is considered to be the treatment of choice for end stage renal disease. One of the most challenging dilemmas in KTx is the shortage of suitable organs. The live donor nephrectomy is considered a unique operation performed on healthy donors, which provides a superior outcome in the recipients. Several surgical techniques have been developed so far to minimize donor postoperative complications as much as possible without compromising the quality of the kidney. The development of a minimally invasive surgery, laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (LDN), was based on this concept. MATERIALS AND METHODS: By searching the pubmed, we reviewed the most evidence based clinical studies specifically randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses to give an overview of the efficacy and safety of LDN versus ODN. RESULTS: The advantages of a LDN vs. a conventional open donor nephrectomy (ODN) are a smaller incision, better wound cosmetics, a lower rate of incisional hernia and adhesion, less postoperative pain, shorter hospitalization, and earlier return to work. Some concerns are longer operative and warm ischemic times, long-term learning curve for surgeons, and the risk of more serious complications than during an ODN. CONCLUSION: Overall, the review of literature shows that a LDN provides less postoperative pain, a shorter hospital stay, a shorter period of rehabilitation, and earlier return to normal work and physical activities in comparison to the conventional open flank nephrectomy but is comparable to the mini muscle splitting approach. The complication rate is generally lower in centers accustomed to performing LDNs; however, complications can be life threatening and could impose significant costs to the health system. Weighing the longer operation and warm ischemic time, as well as the risk of more serious complications against the advantages of a LDN mandates a precise indication. The risk-benefit assessment for choosing one procedure should be done meticulously. Even though the short-term graft function in both techniques is comparable, there is a lack of enough long-term outcome analyses. Finally, in any transplant center, the cost of the laparoscopic procedure should be considered.
Authors: Francesco Greco; M Raschid Hoda; Antonio Alcaraz; Alexander Bachmann; Oliver W Hakenberg; Paolo Fornara Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-04-18 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: A Mehrabi; H Fonouni; M Golriz; B Schmied; M Tahmasbirad; J Weitz; M W Büchler; M Zeier; J Schmidt Journal: Chirurg Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 0.955
Authors: Rebecca L Tooher; M Mohan Rao; David F Scott; Daryl R Wall; David M A Francis; Franklin H G Bridgewater; Guy J Maddern Journal: Transplantation Date: 2004-08-15 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Josef Mang; Linda Hennig; Nadine Biernath; Lutz Liefeldt; Anna Bichmann; Bernhard Ralla; Andreas Maxeiner; Robert Peters; Hannes Cash; Klemens Budde; Frank Friedersdorff Journal: Urol Int Date: 2020-05-15 Impact factor: 2.089
Authors: Krista L Lentine; Bertram L Kasiske; Andrew S Levey; Patricia L Adams; Josefina Alberú; Mohamed A Bakr; Lorenzo Gallon; Catherine A Garvey; Sandeep Guleria; Philip Kam-Tao Li; Dorry L Segev; Sandra J Taler; Kazunari Tanabe; Linda Wright; Martin G Zeier; Michael Cheung; Amit X Garg Journal: Transplantation Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Aaron Fleishman; Khalid Khwaja; Jesse D Schold; Carly D Comer; Paul Morrissey; James Whiting; John Vella; Liise K Kayler; Daniel Katz; Jody Jones; Bruce Kaplan; Martha Pavlakis; Didier A Mandelbrot; James R Rodrigue Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2020-04-12 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: D M D Özdemir-van Brunschot; A E Braat; M F P van der Jagt; G J Scheffer; C H Martini; J F Langenhuijsen; R E Dam; V A Huurman; D Lam; F C d'Ancona; A Dahan; M C Warlé Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2017-06-22 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Jeannette D Widmer; Andrea Schlegel; Philipp Kron; Marc Schiesser; Jens G Brockmann; Markus K Muller Journal: BMC Urol Date: 2018-05-10 Impact factor: 2.264
Authors: Yakup Kulu; Beat P Müller-Stich; Omid Ghamarnejad; Elias Khajeh; Georgios Polychronidis; Mohammad Golriz; Felix Nickel; Laura Benner; Philipp Knebel; Markus Diener; Christian Morath; Martin Zeier; Markus W Büchler; Arianeb Mehrabi Journal: Trials Date: 2018-07-13 Impact factor: 2.279