Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Surgical Endoscopy
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 8/2020

01-08-2020 | Kidney Transplantation

A comparison of laparoendoscopic single-site surgery versus conventional procedures for laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a Japanese multi-institutional retrospective study

Authors: Takamitsu Inoue, Masayoshi Miura, Masaaki Yanishi, Junya Furukawa, Fuminori Sato, Masahiro Nitta, Koji Yoshimura, Jun Hagiuda, Kazunobu Shinoda, Takashi Kobayashi, Akira Miyajima, Ken Nakagawa, Mototsugu Oya, Osamu Ogawa, Hiromitsu Mimata, Hiro-omi Kanayama, Masato Fujisawa, Toshiro Terachi, Tadashi Matsuda, Tomonori Habuchi, LESS and RPS Research Group in Japanese Society of Endourology

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 8/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Laparoendoscopic single-site donor nephrectomy (LESSDN) is a feasible and effective procedure because of its non-invasiveness and better cosmetic outcomes. However, there have been few multi-institutional studies conducted by multiple surgeons on LESSDN. We retrospectively compared the clinical data and outcomes between LESSDN and conventional laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) at multiple institutes in Japan.

Materials and methods

From 2009 to 2015, the clinical data of 223 donors who underwent LESSDN and 151 donors who underwent LDN were collected from 10 institutes. All LESSDNs were performed transperitoneally, whereas LDNs were performed transperitoneally (P-LDN) in 75 patients and retroperitoneally (R-LDN) in 76 patients.

Results

In the LESSDN group, the single-incision site was pararectal in 155 (69.5%) patients and umbilical in 65 (29.1%) patients. Multiple surgeons (one to eight per institute) performed the LESSDN. No significant differences were observed between the three groups regarding estimated blood loss and warm ischemic time. The operative time was significantly shorter in the LESSDN group than in the R-LDN group (p = 0.018). No significant differences were observed regarding the rates of blood transfusion, open conversion, visceral injuries, and postoperative complications. Furthermore, no significant differences were observed regarding the dose of analgesic and the rate of delayed graft function. One patient required open conversion due to injury to the renal artery. Selection of LESS procedure was not an independent risk factor for the median serum creatinine level of above 1.27 mg/dL in recipients at 1 year after kidney transplantation.

Conclusion

The results showed the technical feasibility of LESSDN compared with the standard LDNs in a multi-institutional and multi-surgeon setting. A few observed non-negligible complications and the significantly higher levels of serum creatinine in patients who underwent LESSDN indicate that this procedure should be employed cautiously when performed by surgeons without ample experience in performing LESS procedures.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Ratner LE, Ciseck LJ, Moore RG, Cigarroa FG, Kaufman HS, Kavoussi LR (1995) Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. Transplantation 15:1047–1049
2.
Japanese Society for Clinical Renal Transplantation and The Japan Society for Transplantation (2017) Annual progress report from the Japanese Renal Transplant Registry: number of renal transplantations in 2016 and follow-up survey. Ishoku 52:113–133
3.
Autorino R, Brandao LF, Sankari B, Zargar H, Laydner H, Akça O, De Sio M, Mirone V, Chueh SC, Kaouk JH (2015) Laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) vs laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJU Int 115:206–215CrossRef
4.
Tracy CR, Raman JD, Cadeddu JA, Rane A (2008) Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery in urology: where have we been and where are we heading? Nat Clin Pract Urol 5:561–568CrossRef
5.
Gill IS, Canes D, Aron M, Haber GP, Goldfarb DA, Flechner S, Desai MR, Kaouk JH, Desai MM (2008) Single port transumbilical (E-NOTES) donor nephrectomy. J Urol 180:637–641CrossRef
6.
Canes D, Berger A, Aron M, Brandina R, Goldfarb DA, Shoskes D, Desai MM, Gill IS (2010) Laparo-endoscopic single site (LESS) versus standard laparoscopic left donor nephrectomy: matched-pair comparison. Eur Urol 57:95–101CrossRef
7.
Afaneh C, Aull MJ, Gimenez E, Wang G, Charlton M, Leeser DB, Kapur S, Del Pizzo JJ (2011) Comparison of laparoendoscopic single-site donor nephrectomy and conventional laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: donor and recipient outcomes. Urology 78:1332–1337CrossRef
8.
Wang GJ, Afaneh C, Aull M, Charlton M, Ramasamy R, Leeser DB, Kapur S, Del Pizzo JJ (2011) Laparoendoscopic single site live donor nephrectomy: single institution report of initial 100 cases. J Urol 186:2333–2337CrossRef
9.
Aull MJ, Afaneh C, Charlton M, Serur D, Douglas M, Christos PJ, Kapur S, Del Pizzo JJ (2014) A randomized, prospective, parallel group study of laparoscopic versus laparoendoscopic single site donor nephrectomy for kidney donation. Am J Transpl 14:1630–1637CrossRef
10.
Inoue T, Tsuchiya N, Narita S, Saito M, Maita S, Numakura K, Obara T, Tsuruta H, Horikawa Y, Satoh S, Habuchi T (2013) Laparoendoscopic single-site plus one trocar donor nephrectomy using the GelPort: initial clinical experience. Urology 81:308–312CrossRef
11.
Inoue T, Tsuchiya N, Narita S, Tsuruta H, Akihama S, Saito M, Satoh S, Habuchi T (2015) Successful introduction of laparoendoscopic single-site donor nephrectomy after experience with laparoscopic single-site plus-one trocar donor nephrectomy. J Endourol 29:435–442CrossRef
12.
Stamatakis L, Mercado MA, Choi JM, Sanchez EJ, Gaber AO, Knight RJ, Mayer WA, Link RE (2013) Comparison of laparoendoscopic single site (LESS) and conventional laparoscopic donor nephrectomy at a single institution. BJU Int 112:198–206CrossRef
13.
Yanishi M, Kinoshita H, Yoshida T, Nakamoto T, Mishima T, Taniguchi H, Yoshida K, Sugi M, Kawa G, Matsuda T (2016) Comparison of cosmesis and body image after laparoendoscopic single-site versus conventional laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Transpl Proc 48:729–733CrossRef
14.
Matsuda T, Kanayama H, Ono Y, Kawauchi A, Mizoguchi H, Nakagawa K, Iwamura M, Shigeta M, Habuchi T, Terachi T, Referee Committee of the Endoscopic Surgical Skill Qualification System in Urological Laparoscopy (2014) Reliability of laparoscopic skills assessment on video: 8-year results of the endoscopic surgical skill qualification system in Japan. J Endourol 28:1374–1378CrossRef
15.
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 240:205–213CrossRef
16.
Gupta A, Ahmed K, Kynaston HG, Dasgupta P, Chlosta PL, Aboumarzouk OM (2016) Laparoendoscopic single-site donor nephrectomy (LESS-DN) versus standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 27
17.
Richstone L, Rais-Bahrami S, Waingankar N, Hillelsohn JH, Andonian S, Schwartz MJ, Kavoussi LR (2013) Pfannenstiel laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) vs conventional multiport laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: a prospective randomized controlled trial. BJU Int 112:616–622CrossRef
18.
Barth RN, Phelan MW, Goldschen L, Munivenkatappa RB, Jacobs SC, Bartlett ST, Philosophe B (2013) Single-port donor nephrectomy provides improved patient satisfaction and equivalent outcomes. Ann Surg 257:527–533CrossRef
19.
Ng ZQ, Musk G, Rea A, He B (2018) Transition from laparoscopic to retroperitoneoscopic approach for live donor nephrectomy. Surg Endosc 32:2793–2799CrossRef
Metadata
Title
A comparison of laparoendoscopic single-site surgery versus conventional procedures for laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a Japanese multi-institutional retrospective study
Authors
Takamitsu Inoue
Masayoshi Miura
Masaaki Yanishi
Junya Furukawa
Fuminori Sato
Masahiro Nitta
Koji Yoshimura
Jun Hagiuda
Kazunobu Shinoda
Takashi Kobayashi
Akira Miyajima
Ken Nakagawa
Mototsugu Oya
Osamu Ogawa
Hiromitsu Mimata
Hiro-omi Kanayama
Masato Fujisawa
Toshiro Terachi
Tadashi Matsuda
Tomonori Habuchi
LESS and RPS Research Group in Japanese Society of Endourology
Publication date
01-08-2020
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 8/2020
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-07119-9

Other articles of this Issue 8/2020

Surgical Endoscopy 8/2020 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

Superior pathologic and clinical outcomes after minimally invasive rectal cancer resection, compared to open resection

OriginalPaper

The MicroHand S robotic-assisted versus Da Vinci robotic-assisted radical resection for patients with sigmoid colon cancer: a single-center retrospective study

2019 EAES Oral

Risk factors for open conversion of lateral transperitoneal laparoscopic adrenalectomy: retrospective cohort study of the Spanish Adrenal Surgery Group (SASG)

OriginalPaper

Clinical efficacy of gastric per-oral endoscopic myotomy (G-POEM) in the treatment of refractory gastroparesis and predictors of outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis using surgical pyloroplasty as a comparator group

OriginalPaper

Epidural anesthesia for post-operative pain is associated with a higher incidence of complications following open ventral hernia repair

Dynamic Manuscript

Strategies for superior thyroid pole dissection in transoral thyroidectomy: a video operative guide