Effect of rectus sheath block vs. spinal anaesthesia on time-to-readiness for hospital discharge after trans-peritoneal hand-assisted laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: A randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: The role of spinal anaesthesia in patients having a transperitoneal hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in an enhanced recovery setting has never been investigated. OBJECTIVE: We explored whether substituting a rectus sheath block (RSB) with spinal anaesthesia, as an adjunct to a general anaesthetic technique, influenced time-to-readiness for discharge in patients undergoing hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. DESIGN: Prospective randomised open blinded end-point (PROBE) study with two parallel groups. SETTING: Tertiary University Hospital. PATIENTS: Ninety-seven patients undergoing a trans-peritoneal hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. INTERVENTION: Patients (n=52) were randomly assigned to receive a general anaesthetic and a surgical RSB with 2 mg kg-1 of levobupivacaine at the time of surgical closure or a spinal anaesthetic with hyperbaric bupivacaine 12.5 mg and diamorphine 0.5 mg (n=45) before general anaesthesia. PRIMARY OUTCOME: The primary outcome was the time-to-readiness for discharge following surgery. RESULTS: Median [IQR] times-to-readiness for discharge were 75 [56 to 83] and 79 [67 to 101] h for RSB and spinal anaesthesia and there was no significant difference in times-to-readiness for discharge (median difference 4 (95% CI, 0 to 20h; P  = 0.07)). There were no significant differences in pain scores at rest (P  = 0.91) or on movement (P = 0.66). Median 24-h oxycodone consumptions were similar (P  = 0.80). Nausea and vomiting scores were similar (P = 0.57) and urinary retention occurred in one vs. four patients with RSB and spinal anaesthesia, respectively (P  = 0.077). CONCLUSION: Substitution of RSB with spinal anaesthesia using 12.5 mg hyperbaric bupivacaine and 0.5 mg diamorphine, together with a general anaesthetic failed to confer any benefit on time-to-discharge readiness following transperitoneal hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. RSB provided similar analgesia in the immediate postoperative period with a low frequency of side-effects in this cohort. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrial.gov identifier: NCT02700217.

Changes in Blood Pressure and Arterial Hemodynamics following Living Kidney Donation.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The Effect of a Reduction in GFR after Nephrectomy on Arterial Stiffness and Central Hemodynamics (EARNEST) study was a multicenter, prospective, controlled study designed to investigate the associations of an isolated reduction in kidney function on BP and arterial hemodynamics. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Prospective living kidney donors and healthy controls who fulfilled criteria for donation were recruited from centers with expertise in vascular research. Participants underwent office and ambulatory BP measurement, assessment of arterial stiffness, and biochemical tests at baseline and 12 months. RESULTS: A total of 469 participants were recruited, and 306 (168 donors and 138 controls) were followed up at 12 months. In the donor group, mean eGFR was 27 ml/min per 1.73 m2 lower than baseline at 12 months. Compared with baseline, at 12 months the mean within-group difference in ambulatory day systolic BP in donors was 0.1 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, -1.7 to 1.9) and 0.6 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, -0.7 to 2.0) in controls. The between-group difference was -0.5 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, -2.8 to 1.7; P=0.62). The mean within-group difference in pulse wave velocity in donors was 0.3 m/s (95% confidence interval, 0.1 to 0.4) and 0.2 m/s (95% confidence interval, -0.0 to 0.4) in controls. The between-group difference was 0.1 m/s (95% confidence interval, -0.2 to 0.3; P=0.49). CONCLUSIONS: Changes in ambulatory peripheral BP and pulse wave velocity in kidney donors at 12 months after nephrectomy were small and not different from controls. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY NAME AND REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01769924 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01769924).

Comparison of Ipsilateral and Contralateral Simultaneous Pancreas and Kidney Transplantation: A Single-Center Analysis with 5-Year Outcome.

BACKGROUND It is routine to implant the pancreas on the right and the renal graft on the left iliac fossa during a simultaneous kidney and pancreas transplant (cSPK). Ipsilateral placement of both organs on the same side raises concerns that the pancreas graft might compromise the distally placed kidney. However, ipsilateral SPK (iSPK) can be faster than the conventional contralateral graft placement and allows for preservation of the other side for future transplants. MATERIAL AND METHODS In a single unit, 67 SPK transplantations (cSPK n=49, iSPK n=18) were performed from 2008 to 2011. The decision for graft placement was made during the procedure. Donor and recipient demographics, surgical complications, reoperations, surgical time, and patient and graft survival with 5-year follow-up were compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS Duration of operation was shorter in the iSPK group. Recipient and donor demographics were comparable, apart from more females receiving ipsilateral graft placement. The broader female pelvis was probably the determining factor contributing to this outcome. The iSPK group included marginally younger recipients. The ipsilateral group also demonstrated a trend to improved survival of patient, pancreas, and kidney graft, at 1- and 5-year follow-up. There was no difference in complication rates between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS There were no significant differences in overall outcomes. iSPK is a safe procedure, which proves similar patient and graft survival as with cSPK. Both procedures have comparable surgical complication rates. iSPK is a safe and quicker procedure that allows for preservation of the contralateral side for potential subsequent transplants.