Introducing Hand-Assisted Retroperitoneoscopic Live Donor Nephrectomy: Learning Curves and Development Based on 413 Consecutive Cases in Four Centers
Authors:
- Jonas WadströmJWJonas Wadström
- Alireza BiglarniaABAlireza Biglarnia
- Henrik GjertsenHGHenrik Gjertsen
- Atsushi SugitaniASAtsushi Sugitani
- Jiri FronekJFJiri Fronek
- 27 February 2011
- journal article
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in Transplantation
- Vol. 91 (4) , 462-469
Abstract
Hand-assisted and retroperitoneoscopic techniques reduce the risk of bleeding and intraabdominal complications in living donor nephrectomy (LDN). This study reports on our four-center experience, development, and learning curves from the first 413 LDNs using a hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic (HARS) technique. The first 413 consecutive donors operated on using HARS were included in the study. Donor demographics, perioperative and postoperative data, complications, and recipient outcomes have been compiled. The data were analyzed as a whole and separately for each center, looking at center differences and learning curves over time. Significant differences were found in donor demographics between centers for the variables: age, body mass index, number of arteries, and side of operation. Mean operating time was 170.2 min, with significant differences between centers. Operating time was also significantly influenced by learning curves, sex/body mass index, and side of operation. Warm ischemia time differed significantly between centers and was influenced by center-wise learning and number of arteries. Overall conversion rate was 2.4% and differed significantly between centers. There was no mortality and no intraabdominal complications. Apart from the conversions and one pulmonary embolism, there were no major intraoperative or postoperative complications. Overall 3-month graft survival was 99%, with 96% immediate onset of function and 1% ureteral complications. The HARS technique reduces the risk of intraabdominal complications. It can be implemented with excellent donor and recipient outcomes despite different population demographics and center/surgeon-related tradition and experience. On the basis of our experience, we recommend the technique to increase the safety margin of LDN.Keywords
This publication has 76 references indexed in Scilit:
- Complications of Laparoscopic Living Donor Nephrectomy and Their Management: The UCLA ExperienceUrology, 2007
- Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy 1997 to 2003: Lessons learned with 500 cases at a single institutionSurgery, 2004
- Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy: The University of Maryland 6-Year ExperienceJournal of Urology, 2004
- Living Donor NephrectomyJournal of Urology, 2004
- Laparoscopic (vs. Open) Live Donor Nephrectomy: A UNOS Database Analysis of Early Graft Function and SurvivalAmerican Journal of Transplantation, 2003
- Living-Donor Transplants ReexaminedJAMA, 2003
- Major Complications in 213 Laparoscopic Nephrectomy Cases: The Indianapolis ExperienceJournal of Urology, 2002
- LAPAROSCOPIC LIVE DONOR NEPHRECTOMY: A COMPARISON WITH THE CONVENTIONAL OPEN APPROACHJournal of Urology, 2001
- THE SAFETY AND EFFICACY OF LAPAROSCOPIC LIVE DONOR NEPHRECTOMY: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW1Transplantation, 2000
- Comparison of Open and Laparoscopic Live Donor NephrectomyAnnals of Surgery, 1997