Vascular injuries during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy and proposed risk reduction strategies

ABSTRACT Introduction: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) has become the standard of care and popular among most of the transplant centres across the globe. Objective of this video is to report different vascular injuries, their management during LDNs and propose risk reduction strategies. Patient and methods: This was a retrospective analysis of all the LDNs performed between January 2011 and March 2016. All donor nephrectomies were performed laparoscopically by transperitoneal route, under ideal operative conditions by expert laparoscopic surgeons and by novice surgeons. Results: 858 LDNs (left, n = 797; right, n = 61) were performed during the study period with 5 cases of vascular injuries. Mean (SD) donor age was 45.5 (± 10.76) years and the operative time was 165 (± 44.4) min. Of these five cases, two had renal vein injury, while the three others had renal artery, inferior vena cava and aortic injury (one each). Four injuries occurred during left LDN and only one during a right LDN. Vascular injuries were managed using the Rescue stitch or metallic clips as indicated. Risk reduction strategy was developed to avoid vascular injuries during LDN, which include - meticulous attention to port placement, addition of fourth port, complete dissection of upper pole and pedicle before clipping, and judicious use of ultrasonic diathermy. Conclusions: Careful evaluation of computed tomography angiography just before surgery will act like a global positioning system (GPS) for the operating surgeon. Rescue stitch is a saviour. Not to panic and being well versed with the risk reduction strategies of laparoscopy and rescue measures is of paramount importance.

Robotic repair of vesicovaginal fistula - initial experience

ABSTRACT Objective The most common acquired fistula of the urinary tract is Vesicovaginal fistulae (VVF) (1) posing social stigmata for the patient as well as a surgical challenge for the urologist. Here we present our initial experience with Robotic assisted laparoscopic repair of VVF, its safety and efficacy. Materials and Methods Seven out of eight fistulas were post hysterectomy; five had undergone abdominal while two had laparoscopic hysterectomy while one was due to prolonged labour. Two had associated ureteric injury. All underwent robotic assisted laparoscopic trans abdominal extravesical approach. Three 8 mm ports for robotic arms, one 12 mm port for camera and another 12 mm for assistant were used in a fan shaped manner. All had preoperative ureteric catheter placed. Bladder was closed in two layers and vagina in one layer. Omental flap placed in all cases except two where it was not possible. Drain and per urethral catheter placed in all cases. Double J stents were placed in two cases requiring ureteric implantation additionally. Results The mean age of presentation was 39.25 years (26-47 range) with mean BMI being 26.25 kg/m2 (21-32 range). Mean duration between insult and repair was 9.37 months (3-24 months). Only in single case there was history of previous repair attempt. On cystoscopy four had supratrigonal VVF and four were trigonal with mean size of 13.37 mm (7-20 mm). Mean operative time was 117.5 minutes (90-150). There were no intraoperative/postoperative complications or need for open conversion. Mean haemoglobin drop was 1.4 gm/dL (0.3-2 gm). Drain was removed once 24-48 hours output is negligible. One patient had post-operative urinary leak at 2 weeks which ceased with continuation of catheterisation for another 2 weeks. Catheter was removed after voiding cystourethrogram showed no leak at 2-3 weeks postoperatively. Mean duration of drain was 3.75 days (3-5) and per urethral catheterisation (which was removed after voiding cystourethrography) was 15.75 days (9-28). Mean hospital stay was 6.62 days (4-14). Post-operative bladder capacity was 324.28 cc (280-350) on voiding diary. Follow up ranged from 3-9 months. At 3 months of follow-up, these patients continued to void normally and there was no evidence of recurrence of VVF. Conclusion Robotic repair of VVF is safe and feasible and has additional advantages in the form of precise suturing under 3D vision and certainly a more striking and effective option especially in complex VVF repair associated with ureteric injuries (2).