Robot-Assisted Harvesting of Kidneys for Transplantation and Global Complications for the Donor.

INTRODUCTION: Robot-assisted kidney harvesting from living donors is feasible and safe. We report the results of a mono-centric experience relative to 98 consecutive robotic nephrectomies with emphasis on global donor complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study. Donors underwent robot-assisted kidney harvesting. The preferred kidney was the left one even in the presence of vascular anomalies. In the first cases we used a robotic hand-assisted technique, then the totally robotic technique, and finally the modified totally robot-assisted technique. Postoperative complications were ranked according to the five-grade Clavien-Dindo classification. RESULTS: Between November 2009 and November 2016, 98 living donors underwent nephrectomy. We experienced 14 complications. The 3 intraoperative ones (3.06%) were 1 pneumothorax and 2 acute bleedings, 1 of them requiring transfusion. The 11 postoperative complications (11.22%) were as follows: 5 wound seromas, 1 rhabdomyolisis (Clavien I), 1 paretic ileum, 1 anemia requiring transfusion, 1 hypertensive crisis (Clavien II), and 2 chylus collections drained by interventional radiologists (Clavien III). Transfusion rate was 2.1%; conversions, reoperations, and mortality were nil. No statistically significant difference was observed between the patients with complications and without in terms of gender, age, anatomical anomalies, body mass index (BMI), and learning curve. We observed a longer global operation length of time in patients with complications. CONCLUSION: Robotic assistance results in shorter and simpler learning curves for the harvesting of kidneys from living donors. It enables an easier and more efficient management of possible intraoperative complications. The rate of postoperative complications is comparable with the rate of complications encountered in traditional laparoscopic series with high numbers of harvestings.

Dual Kidney Transplantation: Evaluation of Recipient Selection Criteria at Niguarda Hospital.

BACKGROUND: Dual kidney transplantation (DKT) is a largely accepted strategy to enlarge the donor pool. Niguarda Hospital started this program in December 2010, and 38 DKT have been performed. In our series, we included recipients older than those in the other series published in literature. The aim of this study was to know if our recipient selection criteria for DKT are safe. METHODS: We reviewed our data base of DKT and analyzed recipients' medical history, surgical technique, post-operative complications, graft survival, morbidity, and mortality. We then compared our results with the literature. RESULTS: From December 2010 to April 2015, 38 DKT were performed in Niguarda Hospital. Delayed graft function was present in 21 recipients. Explantation of both kidneys was performed in 1 patient and explantation of 1 kidney in 6 patients. Post-operative complications were present in 8 patients. Five patients returned to hemodialysis after DKT. One recipient died of medical post-operative sepsis. The mean follow-up was 24 months. Graft survival and patient survival were 86.84% and 97.93%, respectively. Compared with the literature, our series had similar mortality and morbidity rates, even if recipients' age was higher than in other series. CONCLUSIONS: The strategy of DKT allocation in elderly recipients is safe. Further studies have to be performed to optimized selection of the recipients for DKT not to disadvantage younger patients in the transplant waiting list and to improve the technique of organ evaluation and preservation to refine graft allocation.

Split-liver full-left full-right: proposal for an operative protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Worldwide, organ shortage is a major limiting factor to transplantations. One possible way to face graft scarcity is splitting full livers into hemilivers; this procedure would allow transplantation in 2 adult recipients with the use of a single organ from a deceased donor. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to describe an adult-to-adult split liver operative protocol and share it between centers interested in exploring this procedure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature review was first conducted to elaborate on the present protocol; second, selection criteria for suitable deceased donors were identified. The technical aspects of performing the procurement were also analyzed; finally, the recipient selection criteria and the transplantation criteria were determined. RESULTS: The donor characteristics should be consistent with the following: age≤55 years; weight≥70 kg; body mass index<28 kg/m2; intensive care unit stay<7 days; sodium level<160 mEq/L if the intensive care unit stay is >2 days; maximum transaminase value 3 times normal; hemodynamic stability; negative for hepatitis B surface antigen, hepatitis C virus, and human immunodeficiency virus; macrosteatosis<20%; macroscopic adequacy; and absence of anatomic anomalies requiring complex reconstruction. The procurement hospital should provide the preoperative computed tomography scan, liver dissector, and the intraoperative ultrasound. Indication for in situ or ex situ splitting depends on the hepatic vein outflow anatomy. Graft-to-recipient weight ratio should be ≥1%, and the graft-to-recipient spleen size ratio should be ≥0.6. United Network for Organ Sharing status 1 and 2A recipients are excluded, as are patients with transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts. Hemiliver transplants are performed as in living-donor liver transplantation, and portal hyperflow is corrected by splenic artery ligation, splenectomy, and portal infusion of vasoactive drugs. CONCLUSIONS: The present protocol was proposed to test the validity of the full-left full-right split liver procedure. A retrospective analysis found that 130 transplantations were suitable for this procedure according to the present protocol in the period January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2011 (65 donors). We believe that these numbers could be greatly increased once this procedure is proven feasible and safe within the proposed criteria.

Initial experience with robot-assisted nephrectomy for living-donor kidney transplantation: feasibility and technical notes.

BACKGROUND: Robot-assisted surgery provide endowrist instruments and 3-dimensional visualization of the operative field that are improvements over traditional laparoscopy. The few research studies published so far have demonstrated that living-donor nephrectomy using the robot-assisted technique is safe and feasible, providing advantages for patients. METHODS: Since November 2009, we performed 20 robot-assisted living-donor nephrectomies. Eight patients underwent hand-assisted robotic nephrectomy, whereas 20, totally robotic nephrectomy. RESULTS: Median intraoperative bleeding was 174 mL (range, 10-750) but no patient needed intraoperative transfusion with blood cells. The median warm ischemia time was 3.16 minutes (range, 0.30-6.5). there was no case of conversion to an open procedure. The median operative time was 311 minutes (range, 85-530); the median console time was 160 minutes (range, 135-220). CONCLUSION: Robot-assisted living-donor kidney recovery was a safe and effective procedure. The totally robotic recovery is an evolving technique. The prospect of robotic staplers, endowrist ligature, and robotic single port may further increase these advantages.

Living-donor liver transplantation: donor selection criteria and postoperative outcomes. A single-center experience with a 10-year follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Donor safety must be considered to be a priority in live-donor liver transplantation (LDLT). The aim of this study was to evaluate these outcomes with special attention to surgical complications and their treatment. METHODS: From March 2001 to March 2012, 80 live donors underwent right hepatectomy (5-8 segments). The middle hepatic vein was always left in the donor. Our retrospective study analyzed surgical outcomes and complications according to the Clavien classification modified for live donors. RESULTS: With a median follow up of 63.2 ± 12.6 months, the mortality was 0%. Two donors experienced intraoperative complications, but all of them had complete recovery there after. Among the 22 complications in 17 donors (21.2%), 7 (8.7%) were major complications (Clavien grade 2b) but only 2 donors required surgical treatment. CONCLUSIONS: LDLT is a safe and feasible modality to alleviate the cadaveric donor shortage. The efficacy of this procedure is similar to that with deceased donors.