Abstract
Purpose:
Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) is an increasingly accepted modality for procuring donor kidneys for transplantation. We analyzed and compared the short and long-term outcomes of living transplant allografts from kidneys procured by laparoscopic or open donor (ODN) technique and managed with a single immunosuppression regimen in each group.
Materials and Methods:
Records of recipients who underwent living (laparoscopic or open) donor nephrectomy were reviewed from August 1999 to July 2001 for LDN and from January 1994 to December 1999 for ODN. Patients included were on a single immunosuppression regimen particular to each group. Sirolimus, mycophenolate mofetil and prednisone were given to the LDN group, and calcineurin inhibitor (FK-506 or cyclosporine), mycophenolate mofetil and prednisone were given to the ODN group. Excluded from study were patients with prior kidney transplant or patients not receiving immunosuppression as previously described. Also excluded from study were patients lost to followup before 1 year. Data were retrieved retrospectively from case notes or from the transplant database and analyzed using SAS software (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina).
Results:
A total of 71 patients from the LDN group and 60 patients from the ODN group qualified for the study. Demographic data are comparable in both groups except for the significantly longer followup in the ODN group. Serum creatinine was 2.2 and 1.8 mg/dl at postoperative day 4, 1.3 and 1.3 mg/dl at day 10, and 1.3 and 1.4 mg/dl at 1 month in the LDN and ODN groups, respectively. Time to achieve nadir serum creatinine was 8.7 versus 6.6 days for LDN and ODN groups, respectively (p = not significant). Delayed graft function was noted in 5 of 71 (7%) in the LDN group and 3 of 60 (5%) in the ODN group (p = 0.5). In the LDN group 13 (18%) patients had a serum creatinine of greater than 1.5 mg/dl at postoperative day 30 compared to 6 (10%) in the ODN group (p = 0.06). Mean serum creatinine at 1 year was lower for LDN recipients (p = not significant). But at last followup this difference became statistically significant in favor of LDN. Mean followup was 939 versus 2,046 days for LDN versus ODN, respectively (p <0.0001). Recipient mean hospital stay was 5.2 versus 6.7 days for LDN versus ODN, respectively (p = 0.08). There were 8 of 78 (10.2%) episodes of acute rejection in the LDN group compared to 22% in the ODN group (p = 0.08). The complication rate (ureteral vascular, lymphocele, acute rejection and wound) was 11% in LDN compared to 15% in the ODN group. Long-term graft function, graft survival and patient survival in the LDN group were comparable to the ODN group.
Conclusions:
Early graft recovery is slower in LDN allografts, although not statistically significant, but long-term function in the LDN group is significantly better compared to the ODN group. Laparoscopic donor kidneys take longer to achieve nadir serum creatinine, but this does not influence long-term outcome and results.
References
- 1 : Laparoscopic live-donor nephrectomy. J Endourol1994; 8: 143. Google Scholar
- 2 : Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. Transplantation1995; 60: 1047. Google Scholar
- 3 : Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: the recipient. Transplantation2000; 69: 2319. Google Scholar
- 4 : A comparison of recipient renal outcomes with laparoscopic versus open live donor nephrectomy. Transplantation1999; 67: 722. Google Scholar
- 5 : Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: analysis of donor and recipient outcomes. Transplant Proc2001; 33: 1111. Google Scholar
- 6 : Living kidney donation: a comparison of laparoscopic and conventional open operations. Postgrad Med J2002; 78: 153. Google Scholar
- 7 : Equivalent renal allograft function with laparoscopic versus open liver donor nephrectomies. Transplant Proc1999; 31: 258. Google Scholar
- 8 : Laparoscopic assisted live donor nephrectomy—a comparison with the open approach. Transplantation1997; 63: 229. Google Scholar
- 9 : Laparoscopic versus open donor nephrectomy: comparing ureteral complications in the recipients and improving the laparoscopic technique. Transplantation1999; 68: 497. Google Scholar
- 10 : Early and late recipient graft function and donor outcome after laparoscopic vs open adult live donor nephrectomy for pediatric renal transplantation. Arch Surg2002; 137: 908. Google Scholar
- 11 : Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: technical considerations and allograft vascular length. Transplantation1998; 65: 1657. Google Scholar
- 12 : Improved recipient results after 5 years of performing laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Transplant Proc2001; 33: 1108. Google Scholar
- 13 : Long-term impact of pneumoperitoneum used for laparoscopic donor nephrectomy on renal function and histomorphology in donor and recipient rats. Ann Surg2003; 237: 351. Google Scholar
- 14 : Short-term impact of carbon dioxide, helium, and gasless laparoscopic donor nephrectomy on renal function and histomorphology in donor and recipient. Surg Endosc2002; 16: 245. Google Scholar
- 15 : Effect of intravascular volume expansion on renal function during prolonged CO2 pneumoperitoneum. Ann Surg2000; 231: 195. Google Scholar
- 16 : Warm ischemia time does not correlate with recipient graft function in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Surg Endosc2003; 17: 746. Google Scholar
- 17 : Learning laparoscopic donor nephrectomy safely: a report on 100 cases. Arch Surg2002; 137: 531. Google Scholar
- 18 : Early withdrawal of cyclosporine A improves 1-year kidney graft structure and function in sirolimus-treated patients. Transplantation2003; 75: 998. Google Scholar
- 19 : Minimizing calcineurin inhibitor drugs in renal transplantation. Transplant Proc2003; 35: 118S. Google Scholar
- 20 : Sirolimus prolongs recovery from delayed graft function after cadaveric renal transplantation. Am J Transplant2003; 3: 416. Google Scholar
- 21 : De novo use of sirolimus in immunosuppression regimens in kidney and kidney-pancreas transplantation at the University of California, San Francisco. Transplant Proc2003; 35: 183S. Google Scholar
From the Section of Renal Transplant and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Glickman Urological Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio
