Comparison of complications of laparoscopic versus laparoendoscopic single site donor nephrectomy using the modified Clavien grading system.

We compared postoperative complications of laparoendoscopic single site and standard laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy using a standardized complication reporting system. We retrospectively analyzed the records of consecutive patients who underwent a total of 663 laparoscopic living donor nephrectomies and 101 laparoendoscopic single site donor nephrectomies. All data were recorded retrospectively. The 30-day complication rate was compiled and graded using the modified Clavien complication scale. Multivariate binary logistic regression was used to determine independent predictors of complications. Baseline demographics were comparable between the groups. Compared to those with laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy patients who underwent laparoendoscopic single site donor nephrectomy had a shorter hospital stay and less estimated blood loss but longer operative time (p <0.05) as well as higher oral but lower intravenous in hospital analgesic requirements (p <0.05). Mean warm ischemia time was marginally lower in the laparoendoscopic single site donor nephrectomy group (3.9 vs 4 minutes, p = 0.03). At 30 days there was no difference in the overall complication rate between the laparoscopic living and laparoendoscopic single site donor nephrectomy groups (7.1% vs 7.9%, p >0.05). There were 8 major complications (grade 3 to 5) in the laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy group but only 1 in the laparoendoscopic single site group. Multivariate binary logistic regression analysis revealed that estimated blood loss was a predictor of fewer complications at 30 days. With appropriate patient selection and operative experience laparoendoscopic single site donor nephrectomy may be a safe procedure associated with postoperative outcomes similar to those of laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy as well as low morbidity. Using a standardized complication system can aid in counseling potential donors in the future.

Ramasamy R ，Afaneh C ，Katz M ，Chen X ，Aull MJ ，Leeser DB ，Kapur S ，Del Pizzo JJ ... -  《-》

Comparison of laparoendoscopic single site (LESS) and conventional laparoscopic donor nephrectomy at a single institution.

WHAT'S KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT? AND WHAT DOES THE STUDY ADD?: Most transplant centres harvest living donor kidneys via a conventional laparoscopic surgical approach. Laparoendoscopic single-site donor nephrectomy (LESS-DN) is a relatively novel minimally invasive approach that allows the surgery to be performed via a single incision. This technique may be advantageous in decreasing surgical morbidity and improving cosmetic outcomes, thus plausibly reducing the barriers to kidney donation. The study demonstrates the safety and feasibility of LESS-DN in a large consecutive series of kidney donors. Comparative analysis between LDN and LESS-DN showed that there was a significant decrease in intra-operative blood loss and allograft warm ischaemia time in the LESS-DN group, but also a significant increase in operating time. Other peri-operative outcomes were similar between the two approaches. Evaluation of the LESS-DN cases alone revealed that, the operating times did not significantly change through the course of the series. Using this outcome as a surrogate for technical difficulty suggests a relatively shallow learning curve for LESS-DN. To present a comparative analysis of peri-operative outcomes for >200 cases of conventional laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) and laparoendoscopic single site donor nephrectomy (LESS-DN). From 2006 to 2011, 213 donor nephrectomies were performed by two surgeons (R.E.L and W.A.M.) at a tertiary transplant centre. The approach changed from conventional LDN to LESS-DN over the course of the series. The two approaches were compared retrospectively and evaluated for differences in peri-operative outcomes. Statistical significance was assessed using Student's t-test and chi-squared analysis. A total of 111 patients underwent LDN and 102 patients underwent LESS-DN. Total operating time was significantly longer in the LESS-DN group (206.1 vs 181.9 min, P < 0.001), but LESS-DN resulted in less intra-operative blood loss (61.5 mL vs 85.9 mL, P < 0.001) and shorter warm ischaemia times (4.4 vs 5.0 min, P = 0.01). There were no significant differences in analgesic requirements, subjective pain scores, length of hospital stay, postoperative graft function, or donor's postoperative glomerular filtration rate between the two approaches. Complication rates were low regardless of the approach, and there were no major complications (>grade II) in the LESS-DN group. In experienced hands, LESS-DN results in peri-operative outcomes similar to those of conventional LDN without compromising donor safety, while providing a desirable cosmetic result. For surgeons familiar with LDN, transitioning to the LESS approach using this technique appears to have a relatively short learning curve.

Stamatakis L ，Mercado MA ，Choi JM ，Sanchez EJ ，Gaber AO ，Knight RJ ，Mayer WA ，Link RE ... -  《-》

Laparoendoscopic single site live donor nephrectomy: single institution report of initial 100 cases.

Laparoendoscopic single site surgery is a recent advance in minimally invasive urology. We report outcomes from our initial 100 consecutive laparoendoscopic single site live donor nephrectomies done by a single surgeon and provide a matched comparison of conventional laparoscopic live donor nephrectomies done by the same surgeon. From 2009 to 2010 at a tertiary referral center 100 consecutive laparoendoscopic single site live donor nephrectomies were performed by a single surgeon through a periumbilical incision using the GelPoint® system. No extraumbilical incisions or punctures were made. A retrospective review was performed using a prospectively managed database of standard perioperative and convalescent parameters. Comparison was made using a matched cohort of conventional live donor nephrectomies done by the same surgeon. Mean operative time was longer in the laparoendoscopic single site group (156 vs 130 minutes) but there was no difference in estimated blood loss or warm ischemia time. There was no difference in the complication rate between the 2 groups. Mean hospital stay and visual analog pain scores were similar in the groups but the laparoendoscopic group showed improved convalescence with faster return to work, normal activity and 100% recovery. Recipient graft function was equivalent in the 2 groups. In this retrospective, matched comparison laparoendoscopic single site live donor nephrectomy was associated with longer operative time but equivalent recipient graft function and improved convalescence. The benefits of laparoendoscopic single site surgery over conventional laparoscopy may be limited. However, with respect to live donor nephrectomy the benefits of laparoendoscopic single site surgery may nevertheless prove beneficial to decrease barriers to live organ donation.

Wang GJ ，Afaneh C ，Aull M ，Charlton M ，Ramasamy R ，Leeser DB ，Kapur S ，Del Pizzo JJ ... -  《-》

Experience with 750 consecutive laparoscopic donor nephrectomies--is it time to use a standardized classification of complications?

Laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy offers patients the benefits of decreased morbidity and improved cosmesis, while maintaining equivalent graft outcomes and complication rates similar to those of open donor surgery. With expressed concern for donor safety, using a standardized complication scale would allow combining data in a donor registry so potential donors could be adequately followed and counseled. We present the largest series to our knowledge of laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy by a single surgeon. The institution's initial 750 laparoscopic living donor nephrectomies were included in the study, and a retrospective and prospective chart and database analysis was performed. Mean donor age was 40.5 years and average body mass index was 25.7 kg/m(2). There were 175 patients (23%) with 2 or more renal arteries while 161 (21.5%) had early arterial bifurcations. There were 3 open conversions (0.4%) and the overall complication rate was 5.46%. Median hospital stay was 1 day and the readmission rate was 1.2%. There were 5 reoperations (0.67%), none of which was for the control of bleeding. No patients required a blood transfusion and there were no mortalities. Using a modified Clavien classification of complications for living donor nephrectomy 65.8% were grade 1, 31.7% grade 2 (12.2% grade 2a, 14.6% grade 2b, 4.9% grade 2c) and 2.4% grade 3. There were no grade 4 complications. With appropriate patient selection and operative experience, laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy is a safe procedure associated with low morbidity. The use of a standardized complication system specific for this procedure is encouraged and could aid in counseling potential donors in the future.

Harper JD ，Breda A ，Leppert JT ，Veale JL ，Gritsch HA ，Schulam PG ... -  《-》

Comparison of laparoendoscopic single-site donor nephrectomy and conventional laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: donor and recipient outcomes.

To present a comparison of perioperative donor outcomes and recipient graft function in a series of patients undergoing laparoendoscopic single-site donor nephrectomy (LESS-DN) versus conventional laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN). Data were collected for 50 consecutive LESS-DN patients and a matched cohort of 50 LDN patients. The donor outcomes analyzed included operative time, estimated blood loss, complications, visual analog pain scores, and recovery time. The recipient outcomes analyzed included serum creatinine at discharge and follow-up and the incidence of delayed graft function. The mean total operative time was shorter in the LDN group than in the LESS-DN group (P < .0001). Linear regression analysis of the LESS-DN operative times relative to case number showed a significant decrease in the operative time with increasing case number (r(2) = 0.19, P = .002). No statistically significant differences were found in estimated blood loss, warm ischemia time, length of stay, or visual analog pain scores between the 2 groups. However, the surgical incision was significantly smaller in the LESS-DN group (P < .0001). After discharge, the patient-reported time to complete recovery was faster in the LESS-DN group (P = .01). The incidence of complications was similar in both groups; however, major complications only occurred in the LDN group. No differences were found in the recipient serum creatinine values or the incidence of delayed graft function. Our initial experience with LESS-DN is encouraging. This retrospective matched-pair comparison between LESS-DN and LDN suggests that the single-port approach might be associated with quicker convalescence. Longer operative times in the LESS-DN group could simply represent the learning curve of a novel procedure.

Afaneh C ，Aull MJ ，Gimenez E ，Wang G ，Charlton M ，Leeser DB ，Kapur S ，Del Pizzo JJ ... -  《-》