The transition from laparoscopic to retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy: A matched pair pilot study

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

16 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND.: Retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy (RetroNeph) offers an intrinsic advantage over conventional transperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy (LapNeph) because of the potentially lower risk for early and late intraperitoneal donor complications. RetroNeph, however, is infrequently performed and has not been systematically and directly compared with LapNeph in nonselected donors. METHODS.: In November 2007, after 10 years of programmatic experience with transperitoneal LapNeph, we implemented RetroNeph at once for all live donor nephrectomies. Donor selection criteria, laparoscopic port positions, and hand-assistance mode were identical for RetroNeph and preceding LapNeph donors. We compared outcomes of retroperitoneoscopically completed cases with those of previous transperitoneal LapNeph cases that were pair matched for donor sex, body mass index, and donor kidney laterality. RESULTS.: Of the first 52 donor nephrectomies (48 left, 4 right) consecutively started with the intent to perform a RetroNeph November 2007 to April 2009, 45 (87%) were completed retroperitoneoscopically, and seven (13%) were switched intraoperatively to transperitoneal LapNeph. We observed no conversions to open nephrectomy, donor blood transfusions, readmissions, or reoperations. Matched-pair analysis of the 45 RetroNeph versus 45 LapNeph cases showed no significant differences for warm ischemia time and other donor outcomes, delayed graft function rates, recipient creatinine at 1 week, and 1-year graft survival. CONCLUSIONS.: Implementation of a RetroNeph program had no adverse impact on donor morbidity and quality of early graft function. Our pilot experience suggests that the RetroNeph learning curve is short. Given the potential advantages of an extraperitoneal approach for the donor, RetroNeph is an attractive alternative to LapNeph, particularly for surgeons with previous LapNeph experience.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)858-863
Number of pages6
JournalTransplantation
Volume89
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 2010

Fingerprint

Nephrectomy
Tissue Donors
Delayed Graft Function
Donor Selection
Matched-Pair Analysis
Warm Ischemia
Learning Curve
Graft Survival

Keywords

  • Kidney graft survival
  • Kidney transplantation
  • Laparoscopy
  • Live donor nephrectomy
  • Retroperitoneoscopy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Transplantation

Cite this

@article{be97ff71737c4a37a265bc49bdba1794,
title = "The transition from laparoscopic to retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy: A matched pair pilot study",
abstract = "BACKGROUND.: Retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy (RetroNeph) offers an intrinsic advantage over conventional transperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy (LapNeph) because of the potentially lower risk for early and late intraperitoneal donor complications. RetroNeph, however, is infrequently performed and has not been systematically and directly compared with LapNeph in nonselected donors. METHODS.: In November 2007, after 10 years of programmatic experience with transperitoneal LapNeph, we implemented RetroNeph at once for all live donor nephrectomies. Donor selection criteria, laparoscopic port positions, and hand-assistance mode were identical for RetroNeph and preceding LapNeph donors. We compared outcomes of retroperitoneoscopically completed cases with those of previous transperitoneal LapNeph cases that were pair matched for donor sex, body mass index, and donor kidney laterality. RESULTS.: Of the first 52 donor nephrectomies (48 left, 4 right) consecutively started with the intent to perform a RetroNeph November 2007 to April 2009, 45 (87{\%}) were completed retroperitoneoscopically, and seven (13{\%}) were switched intraoperatively to transperitoneal LapNeph. We observed no conversions to open nephrectomy, donor blood transfusions, readmissions, or reoperations. Matched-pair analysis of the 45 RetroNeph versus 45 LapNeph cases showed no significant differences for warm ischemia time and other donor outcomes, delayed graft function rates, recipient creatinine at 1 week, and 1-year graft survival. CONCLUSIONS.: Implementation of a RetroNeph program had no adverse impact on donor morbidity and quality of early graft function. Our pilot experience suggests that the RetroNeph learning curve is short. Given the potential advantages of an extraperitoneal approach for the donor, RetroNeph is an attractive alternative to LapNeph, particularly for surgeons with previous LapNeph experience.",
keywords = "Kidney graft survival, Kidney transplantation, Laparoscopy, Live donor nephrectomy, Retroperitoneoscopy",
author = "Christoph Troppmann and Daily, {Michael F.} and John McVicar and Troppmann, {Kathrin L} and Perez, {Richard V}",
year = "2010",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1097/TP.0b013e3181ca570f",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "89",
pages = "858--863",
journal = "Transplantation",
issn = "0041-1337",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The transition from laparoscopic to retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy

T2 - A matched pair pilot study

AU - Troppmann, Christoph

AU - Daily, Michael F.

AU - McVicar, John

AU - Troppmann, Kathrin L

AU - Perez, Richard V

PY - 2010/4

Y1 - 2010/4

N2 - BACKGROUND.: Retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy (RetroNeph) offers an intrinsic advantage over conventional transperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy (LapNeph) because of the potentially lower risk for early and late intraperitoneal donor complications. RetroNeph, however, is infrequently performed and has not been systematically and directly compared with LapNeph in nonselected donors. METHODS.: In November 2007, after 10 years of programmatic experience with transperitoneal LapNeph, we implemented RetroNeph at once for all live donor nephrectomies. Donor selection criteria, laparoscopic port positions, and hand-assistance mode were identical for RetroNeph and preceding LapNeph donors. We compared outcomes of retroperitoneoscopically completed cases with those of previous transperitoneal LapNeph cases that were pair matched for donor sex, body mass index, and donor kidney laterality. RESULTS.: Of the first 52 donor nephrectomies (48 left, 4 right) consecutively started with the intent to perform a RetroNeph November 2007 to April 2009, 45 (87%) were completed retroperitoneoscopically, and seven (13%) were switched intraoperatively to transperitoneal LapNeph. We observed no conversions to open nephrectomy, donor blood transfusions, readmissions, or reoperations. Matched-pair analysis of the 45 RetroNeph versus 45 LapNeph cases showed no significant differences for warm ischemia time and other donor outcomes, delayed graft function rates, recipient creatinine at 1 week, and 1-year graft survival. CONCLUSIONS.: Implementation of a RetroNeph program had no adverse impact on donor morbidity and quality of early graft function. Our pilot experience suggests that the RetroNeph learning curve is short. Given the potential advantages of an extraperitoneal approach for the donor, RetroNeph is an attractive alternative to LapNeph, particularly for surgeons with previous LapNeph experience.

AB - BACKGROUND.: Retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy (RetroNeph) offers an intrinsic advantage over conventional transperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy (LapNeph) because of the potentially lower risk for early and late intraperitoneal donor complications. RetroNeph, however, is infrequently performed and has not been systematically and directly compared with LapNeph in nonselected donors. METHODS.: In November 2007, after 10 years of programmatic experience with transperitoneal LapNeph, we implemented RetroNeph at once for all live donor nephrectomies. Donor selection criteria, laparoscopic port positions, and hand-assistance mode were identical for RetroNeph and preceding LapNeph donors. We compared outcomes of retroperitoneoscopically completed cases with those of previous transperitoneal LapNeph cases that were pair matched for donor sex, body mass index, and donor kidney laterality. RESULTS.: Of the first 52 donor nephrectomies (48 left, 4 right) consecutively started with the intent to perform a RetroNeph November 2007 to April 2009, 45 (87%) were completed retroperitoneoscopically, and seven (13%) were switched intraoperatively to transperitoneal LapNeph. We observed no conversions to open nephrectomy, donor blood transfusions, readmissions, or reoperations. Matched-pair analysis of the 45 RetroNeph versus 45 LapNeph cases showed no significant differences for warm ischemia time and other donor outcomes, delayed graft function rates, recipient creatinine at 1 week, and 1-year graft survival. CONCLUSIONS.: Implementation of a RetroNeph program had no adverse impact on donor morbidity and quality of early graft function. Our pilot experience suggests that the RetroNeph learning curve is short. Given the potential advantages of an extraperitoneal approach for the donor, RetroNeph is an attractive alternative to LapNeph, particularly for surgeons with previous LapNeph experience.

KW - Kidney graft survival

KW - Kidney transplantation

KW - Laparoscopy

KW - Live donor nephrectomy

KW - Retroperitoneoscopy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77950944249&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77950944249&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/TP.0b013e3181ca570f

DO - 10.1097/TP.0b013e3181ca570f

M3 - Article

C2 - 20065916

AN - SCOPUS:77950944249

VL - 89

SP - 858

EP - 863

JO - Transplantation

JF - Transplantation

SN - 0041-1337

IS - 7

ER -