Korean J Transplant.  2022 Jun;36(2):104-110. 10.4285/kjt.22.0003.

Two- and three-dimensional laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a comparative study of a single-center experience

• Rysmakhanov M
• Yelemessov A
• Mussin N
• Yessenbayev D
• Saparbayev S
• Zhakiyev B
• Sultangereyev Y

• KMID: 2531133
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4285/kjt.22.0003

Abstract

Background
This is the first report on three-dimensional (3D) laparoscopic donor nephrectomy performed in the Central Asian region and Commonwealth of Indepen- dent States countries. This study presents the results of our initial experiences of 3D hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (3D-HALDN) in comparison with the outcomes of two-dimensional hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (2D-HALDN) at a single center.
Methods
From 2015 to 2019, 19 3D-HALDN and 19 2D-HALDN procedures were per-formed at the same center by two surgeons. All 38 procedures used identical tech-niques. Between-group differences were considered statistically significant at P<0.05.
Results
The baseline characteristics in both groups were statistically comparable (P>0.05). All donors underwent left nephrectomy. Donors who underwent 3D-HALDN had better outcomes than those who underwent 2D-HALDN, as shown by a shorter warm ischemic time (P<0.05), a shorter operative time (P<0.05), and less blood loss (P<0.05). There were no conversions or major complications (according to the Clavien-Dindo classification) in either group. The average drainage duration and postoperative hospital- ization were significantly shorter in the 3D-HALDN group (P<0.05). The between-group differences in the mean postoperative creatinine level and glomerular filtration rate were not significant.
Conclusions
The 3D-HALDN approach is more beneficial than traditional 2D-HALDN by providing a shorter warm ischemic time, less blood loss, and shorter durations of drain- age and postoperative hospitalization. Postoperative complications and the functional condition of the kidney in donors in the early and late postoperative periods did not depend on the type of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.

Keyword

Kidney transplantation; Hand assisted laparoscopy; Surgical procedures; Nephrectomy

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 The position of the surgeon’s hand and working trocars in hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.

Reference

1. Ratner LE, Ciseck LJ, Moore RG, Cigarroa FG, Kaufman HS, Kavoussi LR. 1995; Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. Transplantation. 60:1047–9. DOI: 10.1097/00007890-200107270-00039. PMID: 32721258.

2. Branco AW, Kondo W, Branco Filho AJ, George MA, Rangel M, Stunitz LC. 2008; A comparison of hand-assisted and pure laparoscopic techniques in live donor nephrectomy. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 63:795–800. DOI: 10.1590/S1807-59322008000600015. PMID: 19061003. PMCID: PMC2664281.

3. Wolf JS Jr, Tchetgen MB, Merion RM. 1998; Hand-assisted laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. Urology. 52:885–7. DOI: 10.1016/S0090-4295(98)00389-6. PMID: 15206504.

4. Simforoosh N, Soltani MH, Basiri A, Tabibi A, Gooran S, Sharifi SH, et al. 2014; Evolution of laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: a single-center experience with 1510 cases over 14 years. J Endourol. 28:34–9. DOI: 10.1089/end.2013.0460. PMID: 24074354.

5. Hung CJ, Lin YJ, Chang SS, Chou TC, Lee PC. 2009; Development of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a strategy to increase living kidney donation incentive and maintain equivalent donor/recipient outcome. J Formos Med Assoc. 108:135–45. DOI: 10.1016/S0929-6646(09)60044-9. PMID: 19251549.

6. Shockcor NM, Sultan S, Alvarez-Casas J, Brazio PS, Phelan M, LaMattina JC, et al. 2018; Minimally invasive donor nephrectomy: current state of the art. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 403:681–91. DOI: 10.1007/s00423-018-1700-3. PMID: 30132134.

7. Gamé X, Binhazzaa M, Soulié M, Kamar N, Sallusto F. 2017; Three-dimensional laparoscopy for living-donor nephrectomy with vaginal extraction: the first case. Int J Surg Case Rep. 34:87–9. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijscr.2017.03.025. PMID: 28376420. PMCID: PMC5379907.

8. Mulder EE, Janki S, Terkivatan T, Klop KW, IJzermans JN, Tran TC. 2018; 3D Endoscopic donor nephrectomy versus robot-assisted donor nephrectomy: a detailed comparison of 2 prospective cohorts. Transplantation. 102:e295–300. DOI: 10.1097/TP.0000000000002130. PMID: 29461442.

9. Kumar A, Gupta P, Kumar S, Yadav S, Prasanth YM, Tyagi V, et al. 2019; A prospective evaluation of donor and graft outcomes of 3-D laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a single centre experience. Cent European J Urol. 72:72. DOI: 10.5173/ceju.2019.1850. PMID: 31011446. PMCID: PMC6469007.

10. Rysmakhanov M, Yelemessov A, Mussin N, Sultangereyev Y, Kaliyev A, Tezcaner T, et al. 2020; Pure 3-dimensional laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy: first case in Kazakhstan. Exp Clin Transplant. 18(Suppl 1):68–9. DOI: 10.6002/ect.TOND-TDTD2019.P12. PMID: 32008499.

11. Carrión DM, Gómez Rivas J, Aguilera Bazán A, Alonso Y Gregorio S, De Castro Guerín C, Álvarez-Maestro M, et al. 2019; Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy versus open donor nephrectomy: outcomes from a single transplant center. Arch Esp Urol. 72:508–14. PMID: 31223128.

12. Vernadakis S, Marinaki S, Darema M, Soukouli I, Michelakis IE, Beletsioti C, et al. 2021; The evolution of living donor nephrectomy program at a hellenic transplant center. Laparoscopic vs. open donor nephrectomy: single-center experience. J Clin Med. 10:1195. DOI: 10.3390/jcm10061195. PMID: 33809339. PMCID: PMC8001196.

13. Sahu D, Mathew MJ, Reddy PK. 2014; 3D laparoscopy - help or hype; initial experience of a tertiary health centre. J Clin Diagn Res. 8:NC01–3. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2014/8234.4543. PMID: 25177597. PMCID: PMC4149103.

14. Zdichavsky M, Schmidt A, Luithle T, Manncke S, Fuchs J. 2015; Three-dimensional laparoscopy and thoracoscopy in children and adults: a prospective clinical trial. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 24:154–60. DOI: 10.3109/13645706.2014.968171. PMID: 25345416.

15. Schoenthaler M, Schnell D, Wilhelm K, Schlager D, Adams F, Hein S, et al. 2016; Stereoscopic (3D) versus monoscopic (2D) laparoscopy: comparative study of performance using advanced HD optical systems in a surgical simulator model. World J Urol. 34:471–7. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-015-1660-y. PMID: 26242728.

16. Guanà R, Ferrero L, Garofalo S, Cerrina A, Cussa D, Arezzo A, et al. 2017; Skills comparison in pediatric residents using a 2-dimensional versus a 3-dimensional high-definition camera in a pediatric laparoscopic simulator. J Surg Educ. 74:644–9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2016.12.002. PMID: 28039097.

17. Currò G, La Malfa G, Caizzone A, Rampulla V, Navarra G. 2015; Three-dimensional (3D) versus two-dimensional (2D) laparoscopic bariatric surgery: a single-surgeon prospective randomized comparative study. Obes Surg. 25:2120–4. DOI: 10.1007/s11695-015-1674-y. PMID: 25893652.

18. Shaikh AR, Shaikh AA, Abbasi M. 2021; Short term outcomes of three dimensional versus two-dimensional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Pak J Med Sci. 37:162–6. DOI: 10.12669/pjms.37.1.3721. PMID: 33437270. PMCID: PMC7794142.

19. Lee K, Youn SI, Won Y, Min SH, Park YS, Ahn SH, et al. 2021; Prospective randomized controlled study for comparison of 2-dimensional versus 3-dimensional laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma. Surg Endosc. 35:934–40. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-020-07587-4. PMID: 32356108.

20. Dirie NI, Wang Q, Wang S. 2018; Two-dimensional versus three-dimensional laparoscopic systems in urology: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endourol. 32:781–90. DOI: 10.1089/end.2018.0411. PMID: 29969912. PMCID: PMC6156697.

21. Padin EM, Santos RS, Fernández SG, Jimenez AB, Fernández SE, Dacosta EC, et al. 2017; Impact of three-dimensional laparoscopy in a bariatric surgery program: influence in the learning curve. Obes Surg. 27:2552–6. DOI: 10.1007/s11695-017-2687-5. PMID: 28456885.

22. Schwab KE, Curtis NJ, Whyte MB, Smith RV, Rockall TA, Ballard K, et al. 2020; 3D laparoscopy does not reduce operative duration or errors in day-case laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomised controlled trial. Surg Endosc. 34:1745–53. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-019-06961-1. PMID: 31312963. PMCID: PMC7093411.

23. Botteri E, Ortenzi M, Alemanno G, Giordano A, Travaglio E, Turolo C, et al. 2021; Laparoscopic appendectomy performed by junior surgeons: impact of 3D visualization on surgical outcome. Randomized multicentre clinical trial. (LAPSUS TRIAL). Surg Endosc. 35:710–7. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-020-07436-4. PMID: 32060747.

24. Serni S, Pecoraro A, Sessa F, Gemma L, Greco I, Barzaghi P, et al. 2021; Robot-assisted laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy: the University of Florence technique. Front Surg. 7:588215. DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2020.588215. PMID: 33521044. PMCID: PMC7844329.

25. Spaggiari M, Garcia-Roca R, Tulla KA, Okoye OT, Di Bella C, Oberholzer J, et al. 2022; Robotic assisted living donor nephrectomies: a safe alternative to laparoscopic technique for kidney transplant donation. Ann Surg. 275:591–5. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004247. PMID: 32657945.

26. Achit H, Guillemin F, Karam G, Ladrière M, Baumann C, Frimat L, et al. 2020; Cost-effectiveness of four living-donor nephrectomy techniques from a hospital perspective. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 35:2004–12. DOI: 10.1093/ndt/gfz143. PMID: 31377771.

27. Arezzo A, Vettoretto N, Francis NK, Bonino MA, Curtis NJ, Amparore D, et al. 2019; The use of 3D laparoscopic imaging systems in surgery: EAES consensus development conference 2018. Surg Endosc. 33:3251–74. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-018-06612-x. PMID: 30515610.

28. Prudhomme T, Roumiguié M, Benoit T, Lesourd M, Beauval JB, Doumerc N, et al. 2019; Laparoscopy for living donor left nephrectomy: comparison of three-dimensional and two-dimensional vision. Clin Transplant. 33:e13745. DOI: 10.1111/ctr.13745. PMID: 31665808.