Search

The role of ureteral stents in living-donor kidney transplantation remains uncertain. In this randomized controlled trial (SPLINT), we compared urological complications in living-donor kidney transplantations performed with or without stents. We included 200 consecutive patients that received living-donor kidney transplantations at the Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam. Patients (124 males, 76 females, mean age 54 ± 13) were randomized for suprapubic externalized single J stents (N = 100) or no stent (N = 100). The primary outcome was the probability of a percutaneous nephrostomy insertion (PCN) during a 12-month follow-up. To assess whether no stenting is noninferior to stenting, we allowed the probability of a PCN to increase by at most 5% (this is the noninferiority margin). Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups. In the no-stent group, there were more PCN insertions, 14% (95% CI 4.3-23.7%); urinary leakages, 12% (95% CI 5.4-21.3%); and surgical re-interventions because of urological complications, 8% (95% CI 1.5-14.5%). The stent group had more hematuria, 26% (95% CI 13.1-38.9%); and graft rejections, 15% (95% CI 2.7-27.3%). Patients in both groups had similar mean GFRs at several time points. Besides a better Euro-Qol-5D in the no-stent group at 2 and 6 weeks postoperative, similar quality of life was reported based on SF-36 and Euro-Qol-5D scores. In this trial, noninferiority has not been demonstrated for no-stent placement in relation to the number urological complications., (© 2020 Steunstichting ESOT. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of ureteral length on urological complications. Data were retrospective collected from the INEX-trial database, a RCT to compare the intravesical to the extravesical ureteroneocystostomy. Ureteral length was measured in 198 recipients and used to divide recipients into three categories based on interquartile ranges: short (≤8.5 cm), medium (8.6-10.9 cm) and long ureters (≥11 cm). Urological complications were defined as the number of percutaneous nephrostomy placements (PCN). Fifty recipients fell into the short, 98 into the medium and 50 recipients into the long ureter category. Median follow-up was 26 (range 2-45) months. There was no significant difference in number of PCN placements between the categories. There were 9 (18%) PCN placements in the short ureter category, 21 (20%) in medium ureter category and 10 (21%) in the long ureter category, P = 0.886. Risk factor analysis for gender, arterial multiplicity and type of ureteroneocystostomy showed no differences in PCN placements between the three ureteral length categories. We conclude that ureteral length alone does not seem to influence the number of urological complications., (© 2015 Steunstichting ESOT.)

Endoscopic techniques have contributed to early recovery and increased quality of life (QOL) of live kidney donors. However, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) may have its limitations, and hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy (HARP) has been introduced, mainly as a potentially safer alternative. In a randomized fashion, we explored the feasibility and potential benefits of HARP for right-sided donor nephrectomy in a referral center with longstanding expertise on the standard laparoscopic approach. Forty donors were randomly assigned to either LDN or HARP. Primary outcome was operating time, and secondary outcomes included QOL, complications, pain, morphine requirement, blood loss, warm ischemia time, and hospital stay. Follow-up time was 1 year. Skin-to-skin time did not significantly differ between both groups (162 vs. 158 min, P = 0.98). As compared to LDN, HARP resulted in a shorter warm ischemia time (2.8 vs. 3.9 min, P < 0.001) and increased blood loss (187 vs. 50 ml, P < 0.001). QOL, complication rate, pain, or hospital stay was not significantly different between the groups. Right-sided HARP is feasible but does not confer clear benefits over standard right-sided LDN yet. Further studies should explore the value of HARP in difficult cases such as the obese donor and the value of HARP for transplantation centers starting a live kidney donation program (Dutch Trial Register number: NTR3096). Nevertheless, HARP is a valuable addition to the surgical armamentarium in live donor surgery., (© 2013 Steunstichting ESOT. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) is less traumatic and painful than the open approach, with shorter convalescence time. Hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic (HARP) donor nephrectomy may have benefits, particularly in left-sided nephrectomy, including shorter operation and warm-ischemia time (WIT) and improved safety. We evaluated outcomes of HARP alongside LDN. From July 2006 to May 2008, 20 left-sided HARP procedures and 40 left-sided LDNs were performed. Intra and postoperative data were prospectively collected and analysis on outcome of both techniques was performed. More female patients underwent HARP compared to LDN (75% vs. 40%, P = 0.017). Other baseline characteristics were not significantly different. Median operation time and WIT were shorter in HARP (180 vs. 225 min, P = 0.002 and 3 vs. 5 min, P = 0.007 respectively). Blood loss did not differ (200 ml vs.150 ml, P = 0.39). Intra and postoperative complication rates for HARP and LDN (respectively 10% vs. 25%, P = 0.17 and 5% vs. 15%, P = 0.25) were not significantly different. During median follow-up of 18 months estimated glomerular filtration rates in donors and recipients and graft- and recipient survival did not differ between groups. Hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy reduces operation and warm ischemia times, and provides at least equal safety. Hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic may be a valuable alternative for left-sided LDN.