Christie Rampersad1, Premal Patel2, Joshua Koulack3, Thomas McGregor2. 1. College of Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada. 2. Section of Urology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada. 3. Section of Vascular Surgery, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.
INTRODUCTION: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.
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: P Ungbhakorn; W Kongchareonsombat; C Leenanupan; K Kijvikai; W Wisetsingh; S Patcharatrakul; S Jirasiritam Journal: Transplant Proc Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 1.066
Authors: Hendrik S Hofker; Willemijn N Nijboer; Jan Niesing; Christina Krikke; Marc A Seelen; Willem J van Son; Marten van Wijhe; Henk Groen; Jaap J Homan Vd Heide; Rutger J Ploeg Journal: Transpl Int Date: 2012-07-31 Impact factor: 3.782
Authors: Ingolf A Turk; Serdar Deger; John W Davis; Markus Giesing; Michael D Fabrizio; Bernd Schönberger; Gerald H Jordan; Stefan A Loening Journal: J Urol Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Hassan N Ibrahim; Robert Foley; LiPing Tan; Tyson Rogers; Robert F Bailey; Hongfei Guo; Cynthia R Gross; Arthur J Matas Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-01-29 Impact factor: 91.245
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: Nicole M Shockcor; Sam Sultan; Josue Alvarez-Casas; Philip S Brazio; Michael Phelan; John C LaMattina; Rolf N Barth Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2018-08-21 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: Ngan N Lam; Christine Dipchand; Marie-Chantal Fortin; Bethany J Foster; Anand Ghanekar; Isabelle Houde; Bryce Kiberd; Scott Klarenbach; Greg A Knoll; David Landsberg; Patrick P Luke; Rahul Mainra; Sunita K Singh; Leroy Storsley; Jagbir Gill Journal: Can J Kidney Health Dis Date: 2020-06-09