Robotic donor nephrectomy: optimizing outcomes beyond the limitations of laparoscopy.
Donor nephrectomy
Kidney transplantation
Living donation
Operative learning curve
Robotic surgery
Surgical education
Journal
Surgical endoscopy
ISSN: 1432-2218
Titre abrégé: Surg Endosc
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8806653
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2023
10 2023
Historique:
received:
09
03
2023
accepted:
23
06
2023
medline:
9
10
2023
pubmed:
7
7
2023
entrez:
6
7
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Robotic donor nephrectomy (RDN) has emerged as a safe alternate to laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN), offering improved visualization, instrument dexterity and ergonomics. There is still concern about how to safely transition from LDN to RDN. We performed a retrospective review of 150 consecutive living donor operations (75 LDN and 75 RDN) at our center, comparing the first 75 RDN's with the last 75 LDN's performed prior to the initiation of the robotic transplant program. Operative times and complications were used as surrogates of efficiency and safety, respectively, to estimate the learning curve with RDN. RDN was associated with a longer total operative time (RDN 182 vs LDN 144 min; P < 0.0001) but a significantly shorter post-operative length of stay (RDN 1.8 vs LDN 2.1 days; P = 0.0213). Donor complications and recipient outcomes were the same between both groups. Learning curve of RDN was estimated to be about 30 cases. RDN is a safe alternate to LDN with acceptable donor morbidity and no negative impact on recipient outcomes even during the early part of the RDN learning curve. Surgeon preferences for the robotic approach compared to traditional laparoscopy will require further scrutiny to improve ergonomics and operative efficiency.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Robotic donor nephrectomy (RDN) has emerged as a safe alternate to laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN), offering improved visualization, instrument dexterity and ergonomics. There is still concern about how to safely transition from LDN to RDN.
METHODS
We performed a retrospective review of 150 consecutive living donor operations (75 LDN and 75 RDN) at our center, comparing the first 75 RDN's with the last 75 LDN's performed prior to the initiation of the robotic transplant program. Operative times and complications were used as surrogates of efficiency and safety, respectively, to estimate the learning curve with RDN.
RESULTS
RDN was associated with a longer total operative time (RDN 182 vs LDN 144 min; P < 0.0001) but a significantly shorter post-operative length of stay (RDN 1.8 vs LDN 2.1 days; P = 0.0213). Donor complications and recipient outcomes were the same between both groups. Learning curve of RDN was estimated to be about 30 cases.
CONCLUSIONS
RDN is a safe alternate to LDN with acceptable donor morbidity and no negative impact on recipient outcomes even during the early part of the RDN learning curve. Surgeon preferences for the robotic approach compared to traditional laparoscopy will require further scrutiny to improve ergonomics and operative efficiency.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37415014
doi: 10.1007/s00464-023-10246-z
pii: 10.1007/s00464-023-10246-z
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
7511-7519Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Axelrod DA, Schnitzler MA, Xiao H, Irish W, Tuttle-Newhall E, Chang SH, Kasiske BL, Alhamad T, Lentine KL (2018) An economic assessment of contemporary kidney transplant practice. Am J Transplant 18(5):1168–1176. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajt.14702
doi: 10.1111/ajt.14702
pubmed: 29451350
Gibbons A, Bayfield J, Cinnirella M, Draper H, Johnson RJ, Oniscu GC, Ravanan R, Tomson C, Roderick P, Metcalfe W, Forsythe JLR, Dudley C, Watson CJE, Bradley JA, Bradley C (2021) Changes in quality of life (QoL) and other patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in living-donor and deceased-donor kidney transplant recipients and those awaiting transplantation in the UK ATTOM programme: a longitudinal cohort questionnaire survey with additional qualitative interviews. BMJ Open 11(4):e047263. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-047263
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-047263
pubmed: 33853805
pmcid: 8098938
Ratner LE, Ciseck LJ, Moore RG, Cigarroa FG, Kaufman HS, Kavoussi LR (1995) Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. Transplantation 60(9):1047–1049
pubmed: 7491680
Wadstrom J, Martin AL, Estok R, Mercaldi CJ, Stifelman MD (2011) Comparison of hand-assisted laparoscopy versus open and laparoscopic techniques in urology procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endourol 25(7):1095–1104. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2010.0348
doi: 10.1089/end.2010.0348
pubmed: 21740261
Yuan H, Liu L, Zheng S, Yang L, Pu C, Wei Q, Han P (2013) The safety and efficacy of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy for renal transplantation: an updated meta-analysis. Transplant Proc 45(1):65–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.transproceed.2012.07.152
doi: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2012.07.152
pubmed: 23375276
Horgan S, Vanuno D, Sileri P, Cicalese L, Benedetti E (2002) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy for kidney transplantation. Transplantation 73(9):1474–1479. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007890-200205150-00018
doi: 10.1097/00007890-200205150-00018
pubmed: 12023627
Baez-Suarez Y, Amaya-Nieto J, Garcia-Lopez A, Giron-Luque F (2020) Hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy: evaluation of the learning curve. Transplant Proc 52(1):67–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.transproceed.2019.10.010
doi: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2019.10.010
pubmed: 31889541
Tooher RL, Rao MM, Scott DF, Wall DR, Francis DM, Bridgewater FH, Maddern GJ (2004) A systematic review of laparoscopic live-donor nephrectomy. Transplantation 78(3):404–414. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.tp.0000128638.85491.76
doi: 10.1097/01.tp.0000128638.85491.76
pubmed: 15316369
Kumar S, Witt RG, Tullius SG, Malek SK (2018) Hand-assisted laparoscopic retroperitoneal donor nephrectomy: a single-institution experience of over 500 cases-operative technique and clinical outcomes. Clin Transplant 32(6):e13261. https://doi.org/10.1111/ctr.13261
doi: 10.1111/ctr.13261
pubmed: 29663498
Giacomoni A, Di Sandro S, Lauterio A, Concone G, Buscemi V, Rossetti O, De Carlis L (2016) Robotic nephrectomy for living donation: surgical technique and literature systematic review. Am J Surg 211(6):1135–1142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2015.08.019
doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2015.08.019
pubmed: 26499052
Giacomoni A, Di Sandro S, Lauterio A, Concone G, Mangoni I, Mihaylov P, Tripepi M, De Carlis L (2014) Evolution of robotic nephrectomy for living donation: from hand-assisted to totally robotic technique. Int J Med Robot 10(3):286–293. https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.1576
doi: 10.1002/rcs.1576
pubmed: 24599640
Ljungqvist O, Scott M, Fearon KC (2017) Enhanced recovery after surgery: a review. JAMA Surg 152(3):292–298. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2016.4952
doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2016.4952
pubmed: 28097305
Halawa A, Rowe S, Roberts F, Nathan C, Hassan A, Kumar A, Suvakov B, Edwards B, Gray C (2018) A better journey for patients, a better deal for the NHS: the successful implementation of an enhanced recovery program after renal transplant surgery. Exp Clin Transplant 16(2):127–132. https://doi.org/10.6002/ect.2016.0304
doi: 10.6002/ect.2016.0304
pubmed: 28836932
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240(2):205–213. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae
doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae
pubmed: 15273542
pmcid: 1360123
Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD, de Santibanes E, Pekolj J, Slankamenac K, Bassi C, Graf R, Vonlanthen R, Padbury R, Cameron JL, Makuuchi M (2009) The Clavien–Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 250(2):187–196. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181b13ca2
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181b13ca2
pubmed: 19638912
Tzvetanov I, Giulianotti PC, Bejarano-Pineda L, Jeon H, Garcia-Roca R, Bianco F, Oberholzer J, Benedetti E (2013) Robotic-assisted kidney transplantation. Surg Clin N Am 93(6):1309–1323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suc.2013.08.003
doi: 10.1016/j.suc.2013.08.003
pubmed: 24206853
Zeuschner P, Hennig L, Peters R, Saar M, Linxweiler J, Siemer S, Magheli A, Kramer J, Liefeldt L, Budde K, Schlomm T, Stockle M, Friedersdorff F (2020) Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a comparison of 250 cases. J Clin Med 9(6):1610. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9061610
doi: 10.3390/jcm9061610
pubmed: 32466503
pmcid: 7355615
Wang H, Chen R, Li T, Peng L (2019) Robot-assisted laparoscopic vs laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in renal transplantation: a meta-analysis. Clin Transplant 33(1):e13451. https://doi.org/10.1111/ctr.13451
doi: 10.1111/ctr.13451
pubmed: 30461073
DeSouza A, Domajnko B, Park J, Marecik S, Prasad L, Abcarian H (2011) Incisional hernia, midline versus low transverse incision: what is the ideal incision for specimen extraction and hand-assisted laparoscopy? Surg Endosc 25(4):1031–1036. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-010-1309-2
doi: 10.1007/s00464-010-1309-2
pubmed: 20737171
den Hartog FPJ, van Egmond S, Poelman MM, Menon AG, Kleinrensink GJ, Lange JF, Tanis PJ, Deerenberg EB (2023) The incidence of extraction site incisional hernia after minimally invasive colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Colorectal Dis 25(4):586–599. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.16455
doi: 10.1111/codi.16455
Chiu LH, Chen CH, Tu PC, Chang CW, Yen YK, Liu WM (2015) Comparison of robotic surgery and laparoscopy to perform total hysterectomy with pelvic adhesions or large uterus. J Minim Access Surg 11(1):87–93. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-9941.147718
doi: 10.4103/0972-9941.147718
pubmed: 25598606
pmcid: 4290126
Bhattu AS, Ganpule A, Sabnis RB, Murali V, Mishra S, Desai M (2015) Robot-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy vs standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a prospective randomized comparative study. J Endourol 29(12):1334–1340. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2015.0213
doi: 10.1089/end.2015.0213
pubmed: 26414847
Song C, Cheng L, Li Y, Kreaden U, Snyder SR (2022) Systematic literature review of cost-effectiveness analyses of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy for localised prostate cancer. BMJ Open 12(9):e058394. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-058394
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-058394
pubmed: 36127082
pmcid: 9490571
Simianu VV, Gaertner WB, Kuntz K, Kwaan MR, Lowry AC, Madoff RD, Jensen CC (2020) Cost-effectiveness evaluation of laparoscopic versus robotic minimally invasive colectomy. Ann Surg 272(2):334–341. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000003196
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003196
pubmed: 32675547
Davidson JT, Clanahan JM, Vachharajani N, Yu J, Rice TC, Cullinan DR, Martens GR, Olumba F, Lee A, Matson SC, Scherer MD, Majella Doyle MB, Wellen JR, Khan A (2023) A novel assessment model for teaching robot-assisted living donor nephrectomy in abdominal transplant surgery fellowship. Am J Surg 225(2):420–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2022.09.058
doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2022.09.058
pubmed: 36253318