Robotic kidney transplant has superior outcomes compared to open kidney transplant: results of a propensity match analysis.
Kidney transplantation
Robot-assisted transplant
Robotic kidney transplant
Robotic surgery
Robotic transplant
Journal
Surgical endoscopy
ISSN: 1432-2218
Titre abrégé: Surg Endosc
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8806653
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 Oct 2024
05 Oct 2024
Historique:
received:
21
04
2024
accepted:
13
09
2024
medline:
6
10
2024
pubmed:
6
10
2024
entrez:
5
10
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Several studies have demonstrated the feasibility of robotic kidney transplant (RKT) as a safe alternative to open kidney transplant (OKT). However, significant selection bias in RKT patient selection limits meaningful comparison between the two techniques. This is a single-center retrospective review of a prospectively maintained kidney transplant database (2021-2024). Outcomes after the first 50 "non-selected" RKTs are compared with a contemporary cohort of 100 OKTs after propensity score matching for age, gender, BMI and type of donation (living vs deceased). Data pertinent to recipient demographics, intraoperative parameters, and short-term post-operative outcomes were collected and compared. Both groups were well-matched for recipient age, gender, BMI, and donation type. RKT group had significantly longer total operative time (RKT 258 min vs. OKT 183 min; p < 0.0001) and warm ischemia time (RKT 37 min vs. OKT 31 min; p < 0.0001) but significantly less blood loss (OKT 155 ml vs. RKT 93 ml). Average length of hospital stay for both groups was 5 days, with OKT group demonstrating significantly higher rates of post-operative complications (OKT 31% vs. RKT 14%; p = 0.028), return to OR (OKT 15% vs. RKT 2%; p = 0.021), hematoma (OKT 13% vs. RKT 2%; p = 0.0355), and lymphocele (OKT 25% vs. RKT 6%; p = 0.0039). OKT group also had higher 30-day readmission rate (OKT 31% vs. RKT 14%) and post-operative opioid requirement (OKT 93 MME vs. RKT 65; p = 0.0254). There were no differences in rates of wound infection, urine leaks, delayed graft function, acute rejection, graft loss, and patient death between the two groups. RKT is a safe and viable alternative to OKT as a first-choice procedure for all patients with ESRD. RKT offers many advantages over OKT which can lead to its wider adoption in the coming years as the new standard of care for ESRD patients.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Several studies have demonstrated the feasibility of robotic kidney transplant (RKT) as a safe alternative to open kidney transplant (OKT). However, significant selection bias in RKT patient selection limits meaningful comparison between the two techniques.
METHODS
METHODS
This is a single-center retrospective review of a prospectively maintained kidney transplant database (2021-2024). Outcomes after the first 50 "non-selected" RKTs are compared with a contemporary cohort of 100 OKTs after propensity score matching for age, gender, BMI and type of donation (living vs deceased). Data pertinent to recipient demographics, intraoperative parameters, and short-term post-operative outcomes were collected and compared.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Both groups were well-matched for recipient age, gender, BMI, and donation type. RKT group had significantly longer total operative time (RKT 258 min vs. OKT 183 min; p < 0.0001) and warm ischemia time (RKT 37 min vs. OKT 31 min; p < 0.0001) but significantly less blood loss (OKT 155 ml vs. RKT 93 ml). Average length of hospital stay for both groups was 5 days, with OKT group demonstrating significantly higher rates of post-operative complications (OKT 31% vs. RKT 14%; p = 0.028), return to OR (OKT 15% vs. RKT 2%; p = 0.021), hematoma (OKT 13% vs. RKT 2%; p = 0.0355), and lymphocele (OKT 25% vs. RKT 6%; p = 0.0039). OKT group also had higher 30-day readmission rate (OKT 31% vs. RKT 14%) and post-operative opioid requirement (OKT 93 MME vs. RKT 65; p = 0.0254). There were no differences in rates of wound infection, urine leaks, delayed graft function, acute rejection, graft loss, and patient death between the two groups.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
RKT is a safe and viable alternative to OKT as a first-choice procedure for all patients with ESRD. RKT offers many advantages over OKT which can lead to its wider adoption in the coming years as the new standard of care for ESRD patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39368003
doi: 10.1007/s00464-024-11301-z
pii: 10.1007/s00464-024-11301-z
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Wolfe RA, Ashby VB, Milford EL, Ojo AO, Ettenger RE, Agodoa LY, Held PJ, Port FK (1999) Comparison of mortality in all patients on dialysis, patients on dialysis awaiting transplantation, and recipients of a first cadaveric transplant. N Engl J Med 341:1725–1730
doi: 10.1056/NEJM199912023412303
pubmed: 10580071
Kakaei F, Nikeghbalian S, Malek-hosseini S (2013) Kidney transplantation techniques. https://www.intechopen.com . https://doi.org/10.5772/54829
Ahlawat R, Sood A, Jeong W, Ghosh P, Keeley J, Abdollah F, Kher V, Olson P, Farah G, Wurst H, Bhandari M, Menon M (2021) Robotic kidney transplantation with regional hypothermia versus open kidney transplantation for patients with end stage renal disease: an ideal stage 2B study. J Urol 205:595–602
doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000001368
pubmed: 32941100
Tzvetanov IG, Spaggiari M, Tulla KA, Di Bella C, Okoye O, Di Cocco P, Jeon H, Oberholzer J, Cristoforo Giulianotti P, Benedetti E (2020) Robotic kidney transplantation in the obese patient: 10-year experience from a single center. Am J Transpl 20:430–440
doi: 10.1111/ajt.15626
Kishore TA, Kaddu DJ, Sodhi BS, Srinivasan SP, Unni NV (2024) Robotic kidney transplant beyond the learning curve: 8-year single-center experience and matched comparison with open kidney transplant. Urology 183:100–105
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2023.10.031
pubmed: 37952604
Breda A, Territo A, Gausa L, Tuğcu V, Alcaraz A, Musquera M, Decaestecker K, Desender L, Stockle M, Janssen M, Fornara P, Mohammed N, Siena G, Serni S, Guirado L, Facundo C, Doumerc N (2018) Robot-assisted kidney transplantation: the European experience. Eur Urol 73:273–281
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.08.028
pubmed: 28916408
Menon M, Sood A, Bhandari M, Kher V, Ghosh P, Abaza R, Jeong W, Ghani KR, Kumar RK, Modi P, Ahlawat R (2014) Robotic kidney transplantation with regional hypothermia: a step-by-step description of the Vattikuti Urology Institute-Medanta technique (IDEAL phase 2a). Eur Urol 65:991–1000
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.12.006
pubmed: 24388099
Lynch RJ, Ranney DN, Shijie C, Lee DS, Samala N, Englesbe MJ (2009) Obesity, surgical site infection, and outcome following renal transplantation. Ann Surg 250:1014–1020
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181b4ee9a
pubmed: 19779327
Schweizer RT, Cho S, Koutz KOUNTZSL, Belzer FO (1972) Lymphoceles following renal transplantation. Arch Surg 104:42–45
doi: 10.1001/archsurg.1972.04180010036010
pubmed: 4550174
Oberholzer J, Giulianotti P, Danielson KK, Spaggiari M, Bejarano-Pineda L, Bianco F, Tzvetanov I, Ayloo S, Jeon H, Garcia-Roca R, Thielke J, Tang I, Akkina S, Becker B, Kinzer K, Patel A, Benedetti E (2013) Minimally invasive robotic kidney transplantation for obese patients previously denied access to transplantation. Am J Transpl 13:721–728
doi: 10.1111/ajt.12078
Campi R, Pecoraro A, Li Marzi V, Tuccio A, Giancane S, Peris A, Cirami CL, Breda A, Vignolini G, Serni S (2022) Robotic versus open kidney transplantation from deceased donors: a prospective observational study. Eur Urol Open Sci 39:36–46
doi: 10.1016/j.euros.2022.03.007
pubmed: 35528789
Garcia-Roca R, Garcia-Aroz S, Tzvetanov I, Jeon H, Oberholzer J, Benedetti E (2017) Single center experience with robotic kidney transplantation for recipients with BMI of 40 kg/m
doi: 10.1097/TP.0000000000001249
pubmed: 27152921
Maheshwari R, Qadri SY, Rakhul LR, Chaturvedi S, Desai P, Grover R, Chhabra G, Khullar D, Kumar A (2020) Prospective nonrandomized comparison between open and robot-assisted kidney transplantation: analysis of midterm functional outcomes. J Endourol 34:939–945
doi: 10.1089/end.2020.0213
pubmed: 32600060
Siedlecki A, Irish W, Brennan DC (2011) Delayed graft function in the kidney transplant. Am J Transplant 11:2279–2296
doi: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2011.03754.x
pubmed: 21929642
Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD, de Santibañes 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 250:187–196
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181b13ca2
pubmed: 19638912
Dowell D, Haegerich TM, Chou R (2016) CDC guideline for prescribing opioids for chronic pain—United States, 2016. MMWR Recomm Rep 65:1–49
doi: 10.15585/mmwr.rr6501e1
pubmed: 26987082
Hill AL, Scherer MD, Kiani A, Vachharajani N, Matson S, Cullinan DR, Martens GR, Yu J, Davidson JT, Wellen JR, Chapman WC, Doyle MB, Khan AS (2023) The impact of a dedicated operating room team on robotic transplant program growth and fellowship training. Clin Transpl 37:e15103
doi: 10.1111/ctr.15103
Olumba FC, Vachharajani N, Yu J, Scherer M, Matson S, Hill AL, Kiani A, Lin Y, Doyle MMB, Chapman WC, Wellen JR, Khan AS (2023) Robotic donor nephrectomy: optimizing outcomes beyond the limitations of laparoscopy. Surg Endosc 37:7511–7519
doi: 10.1007/s00464-023-10246-z
pubmed: 37415014
Tzvetanov I, D’Amico G, Benedetti E (2015) Robotic-assisted kidney transplantation: our experience and literature review. Curr Transpl Rep 2:122–126
doi: 10.1007/s40472-015-0051-z
pubmed: 26000230
Kiani AZ, Progar K, Hill AL, Vachharajani N, Olumba F, Yu J, Chapman WC, Doyle MB, Wellen JR, Khan AS (2024) Robotic living donor nephrectomy is associated with reduced post-operative opioid use compared to hand-assisted laparoscopic approach. Surg Endosc 38:3654–3660
doi: 10.1007/s00464-024-10925-5
pubmed: 38777895
Modi P, Pal B, Modi J, Kumar S, Sood A, Menon M (2014) Robotic assisted kidney transplantation. Indian J Urol 30:287–292
doi: 10.4103/0970-1591.135669
pubmed: 25097315