Faculty Bibliography

Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy decreases disincentives to live kidney donation. Thus, many centers are interested in adopting this procedure. However, the high stakes involved for both the donor and the recipient, and the technical difficulties of the operation, have tempered the enthusiasm of some surgeons. Ideally, if early in their series, surgeons could select patients that would be the least challenging technically, it would facilitate the dissemination of this operation. The purpose of this study is to determine if anatomic or radiologic parameters can accurately assess pre-operatively the degree of technical difficulty of laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy for any individual patient. Abdominal spiral three-dimensional CT scanning was performed prior to laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. CT scans were reviewed for six radiographic anatomic parameters. Seven clinical anatomic measurements relating to body habitus were recorded upon induction anesthesia at the time of surgery. Demographic data for gender, age, race, weight, height, and smoking history were collected. Following laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy, the following six component parts of the operation were graded on a scale of 1-4 (1 = easy, 4 = very difficult) for technical difficulty: a) mobilization of the colon; b) mobilization of the upper pole; c) dissection of the renal vein; d) dissection of the renal artery; e) division of the adrenal vein; and f) dissection of the ureter. Also, operative time, estimated blood loss, and intra-operative fluid requirements were recorded as surrogate markers of operative difficulty. Forty-one patients were included in the study. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy was successfully completed in all cases. The sum of the difficulty scores was 9.9+/-3.1 (mean) (range, 6-18). No anatomic, demographic, or radiologic parameters were predictive of the total operative difficulty score. Of the surrogate markers, only operative time correlated with total difficulty score (R = 0.47, p = 0.003). Donor weight and abdominal girth correlated with operative time (R = 0.50, p = 0.002; R = 0.38, p = 0.019) but not with total difficulty score (R = 0.10, p = 0.51; R = -0.02, p = 0.90, respectively). When the easiest cases and the hardest cases (< or = 25th percentile and > or =75th percentile total difficulty score, respectively) were segregated out, again no anatomic, demographic, or radiologic parameters were predictive of operative technical difficulty. In conclusion, laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy technical difficulty could not be predicted by body habitus from the variables examined in this study. Hence, it was equally likely that performing laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy using a heavy donor would be technically easy, as using a thin donor would be difficult. Although, in general, operative time increased with donor size and weight, it appears that laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy operative technical difficulty is dependent upon such factors as amount of laparoscopic working space, quality of tissue planes, and retractability of the colon and mesocolon; factors that, to date, are not quantifiable.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy offers advantages to the donor in terms of decreased pain and shorter recuperation. Heretofore no detailed analysis of the recipient of laparoscopically procured kidneys has been performed. The purpose of this study was to determine whether laparoscopic donor nephrectomy had any deleterious effect on the recipient. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of all live donor renal transplantations performed from January 1995 through April 1998. The control group received kidneys procured via a standard flank approach (Open). Rejection was diagnosed histologically. Creatinine clearance was calculated using the Cockroft-Gault formula. RESULTS: A total of 110 patients received kidneys from laparoscopic (Lap) and 48 from open donors. One-year recipient (100% vs. 97.0%) and graft (93.5% vs. 91.1%) survival rates were similar for the Open and Lap groups, respectively. A similar incidence of vascular thrombosis (3.4% vs. 2.1%, P=NS) and ureteral complications (9.1% vs. 6.3%, P=NS) were seen in the Lap and Open groups, respectively. The incidence of acute rejection for the first month was 30.1% for the Lap group and 31.9% for the Open group (P=NS). The rate of decline of serum creatinine level in the early posttransplantation period was initially greater in the Open group, but by postoperative day 4 no significant difference existed. No difference was observed in allograft function long-term. The median length of hospital stay was 7.0 days for both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy does not adversely effect recipient outcome. The previously demonstrated benefits to the donor, and the increased willingness of individuals to undergo live kidney donation, coupled with the acceptable outcomes experienced by recipients of laparoscopically procured kidneys justifies the continued development and adoption of this operation.

Live donor renal transplantation has many advantages including greater graft and patient survival, shorter waiting periods, improved human leukocyte antigen matching, and less cold ischemia. Until recently, disincentives from the operation, such as prolonged hospitalization, postoperative pain, and significant convalescence, have deterred live donor renal transplantation. This article describes the technique of laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy and briefly reports the results. The procedure has resulted in improved postoperative recovery and shorter convalescence, with no effect on recipient renal function.