• Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy
• learning curve
• open donor nephrectomy

Objective: To provide a step-by-step overview of the University of Florence technique for robotic living donor nephrectomy (LDN), focusing on its technical nuances and perioperative outcomes.

Methods: A dedicated robotic LDN program at our Institution was codified in 2012. Data from patients undergoing robotic LDN from 2012 to 2019 were prospectively collected. All robotic LDNs were performed by a highly experienced surgeon, using the da Vinci Si robotic platform in a three-arm configuration. In this report we provide a detailed overview of our surgical technique for robotic LDN. The main objective of the study was to evaluate the technical feasibility and safety of the technique, including perioperative surgical complications rate and mid-term functional outcomes.

Results: Overall, 36 patients undergoing robotic LDNs were included in the study. Of these, 28 (78%) were left LDNs. Median (IQR) donor pre-operative eGFR was 88 (75.6–90) ml/min/1.73 m². In all cases, robotic LDN was completed without need of conversion. The median (IQR) overall operative time was 230 (195–258) min, while the median console time was 133 (IQR 117-166) min. The median (IQR) warm ischemia time was 175 (140–255) s. No intraoperative adverse events or 90-d major surgical complications were recorded. At a median (IQR) follow-up of 24 months (IQR 11-46), median (IQR) eGFR patients undergoing in living donor nephrectomy was 57.4 (47.9; 63.9) ml/min/1.73 m².

Conclusions: In our experience, robotic LDN is technically feasible and safe. The use of robotic surgery for LDN may provide distinct advantages for surgeons while ensuring optimal donors' perioperative and functional outcomes.

• kidney transplantation
• living donor nephrectomy
• minimally invasive surgery
• robotics
• technique

• Anatomy
• Inferior vena cava
• Left renal vein
• Lumbar vein
• Renal transplantation

• Cadaver
• Dissection
• Humans
• Kidney/blood supply
• Kidney/embryology
• Kidney/surgery
• Renal Veins/anatomy & histology
• Renal Veins/embryology

To compare laparoscopic and open living donor nephrectomy, based on the results from a single center during a decade.

This is a retrospective review of all living donor nephrectomies performed at the Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, between 1/1998 - 12/2009. Overall there were 490 living donors, with 279 undergoing laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy (LLDN) and 211 undergoing open donor nephrectomy (OLDN). Demographic data, operating room time, the effect of the learning curve, the number of conversions from laparoscopic to open surgery, donor preoperative glomerular filtration rate and creatinine (Cr), donor and recipient postoperative Cr, delayed graft function and donor complications were analyzed. Statistical analysis was performed.

Overall there was no statistically significant difference between the LLDN and the OLDN groups regarding operating time, donor preoperative renal function, donor and recipient postoperative kidney function, delayed graft function or the incidence of major complications. When the last 100 laparoscopic cases were analyzed, there was a statistically significant difference regarding operating time in favor of the LLDN, pointing out the importance of the learning curve. Furthermore, another significant difference between the two groups was the decreased length of stay for the LLDN (2.87 d for LLDN vs 3.6 d for OLDN).

Recognizing the importance of the learning curve, this paper provides evidence that LLDN has a safety profile comparable to OLDN and decreased length of stay for the donor.

• Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy
• Open donor nephrectomy
• Living donor renal transplantation
• Complications
• Surgical technique
• Renal graft function

Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (DN) has been established as a useful alternative to the traditional open methods of procuring kidneys. To maximize the advantages of the laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) method, we applied natural orifice specimen extraction to LESS-DN. A 46-year-old woman with no previous abdominal surgery history volunteered to donate her left kidney to her husband and underwent single-port laparoscopic DN with transvaginal extraction. The procedure was completed without intraoperative complications. The kidney functioned well immediately after transplantation, and the donor and recipient were respectively discharged 2 days and 2 weeks postoperatively. Single-port laparoscopic DN and transvaginal graft extraction is feasible and safe.

• Laparoscopy
• Living donors
• Natural orifice endoscopic surgery
• Nephrectomy

We compared perioperative donor outcomes and early graft function of hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN) and pure laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (PLDN) performed by a single surgeon, to define the feasibility of technical transition from HALDN to PLDN.

From October 1, 2012, through June 30, 2014, 60 donor nephrectomies were performed by a single surgeon who lacked experience with laparoscopic renal surgery: the first 30 by HALDN and the last 30 by PLDN. Operative and convalescence parameters were compared, as were intra- and postoperative complications within 90 days according to the Satava and Clavien-Dindo classifications, respectively. Binary logistic regression analysis was used to estimate the association of baseline characteristics with complications.

Baseline characteristics were similar in the 2 groups, except for American Society of Anesthesiologists score II (10.0% vs 43.3%; P = .007). All procedures were completed as planned. All operative and convalescence parameters of donors and graft outcomes were similar in the 2 groups, as were overall rates of intraoperative (43.3% vs 36.7%, P = .598) and postoperative (86.7% vs 70.0%; P = .209) complications. No factor was significantly predictive of intraoperative complications, whereas sex (female vs male, odds ratio, 0.183; P = .029) and learning curve (odds ratio, 0.602; P = .036) were significant determinants of postoperative complication.

The technical transition from HALDN to PLDN does not involve a steep learning curve for surgeons less experienced with laparoscopic renal surgery and maintains similar perioperative donor and graft outcomes.

• Hand-assisted
• Intraoperative complications
• Laparoscopic
• Living donors
• Postoperative complications

• Cicatrix/epidemiology
• Cosmetic Techniques
• Female
• Follow-Up Studies
• Humans
• Incidence
• Kidney/surgery
• Kidney Transplantation
• Laparoscopes/classification
• Laparoscopy/instrumentation
• Laparoscopy/methods
• Living Donors
• Male
• Middle Aged
• Nephrectomy/instrumentation
• Nephrectomy/methods
• Patient Satisfaction
• Severity of Illness Index
• Time Factors

Objective. To assess the long-term graft survival of right-sided retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy (RPLDN), we compared the outcomes of right- and left-sided RPLDN. Methods. Five hundred and thirty-three patients underwent live donor renal transplantation with allografts procured by RPLDN from July 2001 to August 2010 at our institute. Of these, 24 (4.5%) cases were selected for right-sided RPLDN (R-RPLDN) according to our criteria for donor kidney selection. Study variables included peri- and postoperative clinical data. Results. No significant differences were found in the recipients' postoperative graft function and incidence of slow graft function. Despite significant increased warm ischemic time (WIT: mean 5.9 min versus 4.7 min, P < 0.001) in R-RPLDN compared to that in L-RPLDN, there was no significant difference between the two groups regarding long-term patient and graft survival. The complication rate in R-RPLDN was not significantly different compared to that in L-RPLDN (17% versus 6.5%, P = 0.132). No renal vein thrombosis was experienced in either groups. Conclusions. Although our study was retrospective and there was only a small number of R-RPLDN patients, R-RPLDN could be an option for laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy because of similar results, with the sole exception of WIT, in L-RPLDN, and its excellent long-term graft outcomes.

The hand-assisted technique enables the rapid extraction of the graft, shortening the warm ischemia time (WIT), and the retroperitoneoscopic approach is potentially associated with a less incidence of postoperative ileus in donor nephrectomy for living kidney transplantation. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy with a gel-sealed hand-assist access device (GelPort), which is a wound sealing device that permits the access of the hand to the surgical field, free trocar site choice within it, and rapid conversion to open surgery if necessary, while preserving the pneumoperitoneum/pneumoretroperitoneum.

Seventy-five consecutive donors receiving this procedure were retrospectively studied. A 2-cm skin incision was made at the midpoint between the tip of the 12th rib and superior border of the iliac bone in the midaxillary line, through which retroperitoneal space was made. Preperitoneal wound with a 6 – 7-cm pararectal incision in the upper abdominal region was connected to the retroperitoneal space. A GelPort was put inside the pararectal surgical wound. The principle was pure retroperitoneoscopic surgery; hand-assist was applied for retraction of the kidney in the renal vessel control and graft extraction.

The mean operation time including waiting time for recipient preparation was 242.2±37.0 (range: 214.0–409.0) min, and the mean amount of blood loss was 164.3±146.6 (range: 10.0–1020.0) ml. The mean WIT was 2.8±1.0 (range: 1.0–6.0) min. The shortage of renal vessels or ureter was observed in none of the grafts. No donor experienced blood transfusion, open conversion, or injury of other organs. Blood loss was greater in patients with body mass index (BMI) of 25 kg/m² or higher than in those with BMI of <25 kg/m² (218.4±98.8 vs. 154.8±152.1 ml, P=0.031). No donor had postoperative ileus or reported wound pain leading to decreased activity of daily life or wound cosmetic problem.

Retroperitoneoscopic hand-assisted donor nephrectomy with the mentioned approach was suggested to be a feasible option without compromising safety, although further improvement in surgical techniques is warranted.

There are two approaches to laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) and hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN). In this study we report the operative statistics and donor complications associated with LDN and HALDN from large-center peer-reviewed publications. Methods. We conducted PubMed and Ovid searches to identify LDN and HALDN outcome studies that were published after 2004. Results. There were 37 peer-reviewed studies, each with more than 150 patients. Cumulatively, over 9000 patients were included in this study. LDN donors experienced a higher rate of intraoperative complications than HALDN donors (5.2% versus. 2.0%, P < .001). Investigators did not report a significant difference in the rate of major postoperative complications between the two groups (LDN 0.5% versus HALDN 0.7%, P = .111). However, conversion to open procedures from vascular injury was reported more frequently in LDN procedures (0.8% versus 0.4%, P = .047). Conclusion. At present there is no evidence to support the use of one laparoscopic approach in preference to the other. There are trends in the data suggesting that intraoperative injuries are more common in LDN while minor postoperative complications are more common in HALDN.

• Adult
• Cross-Sectional Studies
• Follow-Up Studies
• Functional Laterality
• Humans
• Kidney/diagnostic imaging
• Male
• Nephrectomy/adverse effects
• Nephrectomy/methods
• Renal Veins/anatomy & histology
• Renal Veins/pathology
• Testis/blood supply
• Tissue Donors/statistics & numerical data
• Ultrasonography
• Varicocele/etiology
• Young Adult