Laparoscopic versus open living-donor nephrectomy: experiences from a prospective, randomized, single-center study focusing on donor safety. Comparison of laparoscopic and mini incision open donor nephrectomy: single blind, randomised controlled clinical trial. Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open donor nephrectomy. Laparoscopic v open donor nephrectomy for pediatric kidney recipients: preliminary report of a randomized controlled trial. Randomized controlled trial of hand-assisted laparoscopic versus open surgical live donor nephrectomy. Comparison of laparoscopic and open donor nephrectomy: a randomized controlled trial.
Very few randomized studies on laparoscopic (L) versus open (O) living-donor nephrectomy (LDN) have been presented. The largest randomized series reported so far included 80 donors. In 2000, an Australian safety group concluded that the evidence base for L-LDN is inadequate to make recommendations regarding safety and efficacy.
                With this background, at our single national center, 122 donors were randomized to left-sided L-LDN (n=63) or O-LDN (n=59), from February 2001 to May 2004. This article summarizes our experiences, in particular regarding complications and safety.
                There were significant differences in favor of O-LDN regarding operative time, warm ischemia time, and vessel lengths, whereas the analgesic requirements and pain data were significantly in favor of the laparoscopic procedure. In the L-LDN group, there were five major postoperative complications resulting in reoperations (8%), including two intestinal perforations. No major complications occurred in the O-LDN group.
                These results from our randomized study do suggest that conventional O-LDN is a very secure procedure, superior to L-LDN regarding donor safety. There has been an unacceptably high rate of reoperations in our L-LDN series but without mortality or significant sequelae. A careful look at some other L-LDN series also suggests increased morbidity/mortality. Our data do, however, support the view that a perfect, uncomplicated L-LDN appears to be the superior procedure, and the laparoscopic procedure is still evolving. Donor safety may be improved by avoiding obese donors, stapling of the renal artery (not clipping), and perhaps by hand assistance. Furthermore, we will consider the retroperitoneal approach. To determine the best approach for live donor nephrectomy to minimise discomfort to the donor and to provide good graft function.
                Single blind, randomised controlled trial.
                Two university medical centres, the Netherlands.
                100 living kidney donors.
                Participants were randomly assigned to either laparoscopic donor nephrectomy or to mini incision muscle splitting open donor nephrectomy.
                The primary outcome was physical fatigue using the multidimensional fatigue inventory 20 (MFI-20). Secondary outcomes were physical function using the SF-36, hospital stay after surgery, pain, operating times, recipient graft function, and graft survival.
                Conversions did not occur. Compared with mini incision open donor nephrectomy, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy resulted in longer skin to skin time (median 221 v 164 minutes, P < 0.001), longer warm ischaemia time (6 v 3 minutes, P < 0.001), less blood loss (100 v 240 ml, P < 0.001), and a similar number of complications (intraoperatively 12% v 6%, P = 0.49, postoperatively both 6%). After laparoscopic nephrectomy, donors required less morphine (16 v 25 mg, P = 0.005) and shorter hospital stay (3 v 4 days, P = 0.003). During one year's follow-up mean physical fatigue was less (difference - 1.3, 95% confidence interval - 2.4 to - 0.1) and physical function was better (difference 6.2, 2.0 to 10.3) after laparoscopic nephrectomy. Function of the graft and graft survival rate of the recipient at one year censored for death did not differ (100% after laparoscopic nephrectomy and 98% after open nephrectomy).
                Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy results in a better quality of life compared with mini incision open donor nephrectomy but equal safety and graft function. This randomized controlled trial was designed to determine the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) in comparison with short-incision open donor nephrectomy (ODN).
                Eighty-four live kidney donors were randomized in a 2 : 1 ratio to LDN (56 patients) or short-incision ODN without rib resection (28). Primary endpoints were pain relief and duration of inpatient stay.
                There was no donor death or allograft thrombosis in either group. The first warm ischaemic time median (range) 4 (2-7) versus 2 (1-5) min; P = 0.001) and the duration of operation (160 (110-250) versus 150 (90-200); P = 0.004) were longer for LDN. LDN led to a reduction in parenteral morphine requirement 59 (6-136) versus 90 (35-312) mg; P = 0.001) and hospital stay (4 (2-6) versus 6 (2-9) days; P = 0.001), and earlier return to employment (42 (14-84) versus 66.5 (14-112) days; P = 0.004). Postoperative respiratory function was improved after LDN. There were more postoperative complications per donor in the ODN group (0.6(0.7) versus 0.3(0.5); P = 0.033). At a median follow-up of 74 months, there were no differences in renal function or allograft survival between the groups.
                LDN removes some of the disincentives to live donation without compromising the outcome of the recipient transplant.
                Copyright 2009 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Laparoscopic surgery is widely accepted for nephrectomy in adult renal transplantation. The success of this technique has not been compared with open donor nephrectomy (ODN) in children.
                In this randomized clinical trial, 40 adult kidney donors were randomly divided into two groups: 20 cases of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) and 20 of ODN. Recipients had an age of <15 years. Our exclusion criteria were previous renal transplantation, hemolytic uremic syndrome, focal segmental glomerulosclerosis, oxalosis in the recipients, and multiple renal arteries bilaterally in donors.
                All donor nephrectomies were completed as scheduled, and no patients undergoing LDN required conversion to open nephrectomy. No patients in either the ODN or the LDN group required reoperation. Acute rejection was diagnosed in six patients receiving kidneys procured by ODN (30%) and 4 patients (20%) receiving kidneys obtained by LDN (P = 0.3). No recipients or donors died. At 1 year, the graft survival times in the ODN and LDN groups were 310.8 +/- 28.8 and 302.7 +/- 28.2 days, respectively (P = 0.8).
                At our medical center, pediatric LDN recipients had graft outcomes similar to those of ODN recipients. We recommend LDN for harvest of kidneys for pediatric recipients at experienced centers. Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy for renal transplantation is being performed in increasing numbers with the goals of broadening organ supply while minimizing pain and duration of convalescence for donors. Relative advantages in terms of recovery provided by laparoscopy over standard open surgery have not been rigorously assessed. We hypothesized that laparoscopic as compared with open surgical live donor nephrectomy provides briefer, less intense, and more complete convalescence.
                Of 105 volunteer, adult, potential living-renal donors interested in the laparoscopic approach, 70 were randomly assigned to undergo either hand-assisted laparoscopic or open surgical live donor nephrectomy at a single referral center. Objective data and subjective recovery information obtained with telephone interviews and validated questionnaires administered 2 weeks, 6 weeks, and 6-12 months postoperatively were compared between the 23 laparoscopic and 27 open surgical patients.
                There was 47% less analgesic use (P=0.004), 35% shorter hospital stay (P=0.0001), 33% more rapid return to nonstrenuous activity (P=0.006), 23% sooner return to work (P=0.037), and 73% less pain 6 weeks postoperatively (P=0.004) in the laparoscopy group. Laparoscopic patients experienced complete recovery sooner (P=0.032) and had fewer long-term residual effects (P=0.0015).
                Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is associated with a briefer, less intense, and more complete convalescence compared with the open surgical approach. Authors from Iran compare various outcomes between laparoscopic and open donor nephrectomy in kidney transplantation; they carried out a large comparative trial, and found that laparoscopic donor nephrectomy gave better donor satisfaction and morbidity, with equivalent graft outcome.
                To compare the graft survival, donor and recipient outcome, donor satisfaction, and complications of laparoscopic (LDN) and open donor nephrectomy (ODN) in kidney transplantation.
                In a randomized controlled trial, 100 cases each of LDN and ODN were compared. We modified the standard LDN procedure to make it less expensive.
                The mean (sd) operative duration was 152.2 (33.9) min for ODN and 270.8 (58.5) min for LDN, and the mean duration of kidney warm ischaemia was 1.87 min for ODN and 8.7 min for LDN. Only one LDN required conversion to ODN because of bleeding. The mean follow-up in the LDN and ODN groups was not significantly different (406.1 vs 403.8 days). The mean (sd) score for donor satisfaction was 17.3 (3.5) for ODN and 19.6 (1.0) for LDN. The rate of ureteric complications was 2% for ODN and none for LDN. As determined by serum creatinine levels at 3, 21-30, 90, 180 and 365 days after surgery, graft function was not significantly different between ODN and LDN. Long-term graft survival was 93.8% for LDN and 92.7% for ODN.
                Compared to ODN, LDN was associated with greater donor satisfaction, less morbidity and equivalent graft outcome.
LDN is associated with less pain compared with open surgery; however, there are equivalent numbers of complications and occurrences of perioperative events that require further intervention. Kidneys obtained using LDN procedures were exposed to longer warm ischaemia periods than ODN-acquired grafts, although this has not been reported as being associated with short-term consequences.