Article

Open versus laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: a focus on the safety of donors and the need for a donor registry.

Urology and Nephrology Center, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt.
The Journal of Urology (Impact Factor: 3.7). 12/2007; 178(5):1860-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2007.07.008
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT A review of the existing literature showed that the subject of live donor nephrectomy is a seat of underreporting and underestimation of complications. We provide a systematic comparison between laparoscopic and open live donor nephrectomy with special emphasis on the safety of donors and grafts.
The PubMed literature database was searched from inception to October 2006. A comparison was made between laparoscopic and open live donor nephrectomy regarding donor safety and graft efficacy.
The review included 69 studies. There were 7 randomized controlled trials, 5 prospective nonrandomized studies, 22 retrospective controlled studies, 26 large (greater than 100 donors), retrospective, noncontrolled studies, 8 case reports and 1 experimental study. Most investigators concluded that, compared to open live donor nephrectomy, laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy provides equal graft function, an equal rejection rate, equal urological complications, and equal patient and graft survival. Analgesic requirements, pain data, hospital stay and time to return to work are significantly in favor of the laparoscopic procedure. On the other hand, laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy has the disadvantages of increased operative time, increased warm ischemia time and increased major complications requiring reoperation. In terms of donor safety at least 8 perioperative deaths were recorded after laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. These perioperative deaths were not documented in recent review articles. Ten perioperative deaths were reported with open live donor nephrectomy by 1991. No perioperative mortalities have been recorded following open live donor nephrectomy since 1991. Regarding graft safety, at least 15 graft losses directly related to the surgical technique of laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy were found but none was emphasized in recent review articles. The incidence of graft loss due to technical reasons in the early reports of open live donor nephrectomy was not properly documented in the literature.
We are in need of a live organ donor registry to determine the combined experience of complications and long-term outcomes, rather than short-term reports from single institutions. Like all other new techniques, laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy should be developed and improved at a few centers of excellence to avoid the loss of a donor or a graft.

1 Bookmark
 · 
103 Views
  • Source
  • Source
    Annals of transplantation: quarterly of the Polish Transplantation Society 09/2013; · 0.82 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Kidney transplantation (KTx) is considered to be the treatment of choice for end stage renal disease. One of the most challenging dilemmas in KTx is the shortage of suitable organs. The live donor nephrectomy is considered a unique operation performed on healthy donors, which provides a superior outcome in the recipients. Several surgical techniques have been developed so far to minimize donor postoperative complications as much as possible without compromising the quality of the kidney. The development of a minimally invasive surgery, laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (LDN), was based on this concept. By searching the pubmed, we reviewed the most evidence based clinical studies specifically randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses to give an overview of the efficacy and safety of LDN versus ODN. The advantages of a LDN vs. a conventional open donor nephrectomy (ODN) are a smaller incision, better wound cosmetics, a lower rate of incisional hernia and adhesion, less postoperative pain, shorter hospitalization, and earlier return to work. Some concerns are longer operative and warm ischemic times, long-term learning curve for surgeons, and the risk of more serious complications than during an ODN. Overall, the review of literature shows that a LDN provides less postoperative pain, a shorter hospital stay, a shorter period of rehabilitation, and earlier return to normal work and physical activities in comparison to the conventional open flank nephrectomy but is comparable to the mini muscle splitting approach. The complication rate is generally lower in centers accustomed to performing LDNs; however, complications can be life threatening and could impose significant costs to the health system. Weighing the longer operation and warm ischemic time, as well as the risk of more serious complications against the advantages of a LDN mandates a precise indication. The risk-benefit assessment for choosing one procedure should be done meticulously. Even though the short-term graft function in both techniques is comparable, there is a lack of enough long-term outcome analyses. Finally, in any transplant center, the cost of the laparoscopic procedure should be considered.
    Langenbeck s Archives of Surgery 04/2014; · 1.89 Impact Factor

Full-text

View
5 Downloads
Available from