ABSTRACT
Living donor robotic-assisted kidney transplantation (RAKT) is an alternative to open kidney transplantation (OKT), but experience with this technique is limited in the United States. Methods: A retrospective review of living donor kidney transplants performed between 2016 and 2018 compared RAKT with OKT with regard to recipient, donor, and perioperative parameters. A 1:1 propensity score matching was performed on recipient/donor age, sex, body mass index, race, preoperative dialysis, and calculated panel reactive antibodies. Results: Outcomes of patient survival, graft survival, and postoperative complications were assessed for 139 transplants (47 RAKT and 92 OKT). Propensity score analysis (47:47) showed that RAKT recipients had longer warm ischemic times (49 versus 40 min; P < 0.001) and less blood loss (100 versus 150 mL; P = 0.005). Operative time and length of stay were similar between groups. Postoperative serum creatinine was similar during a 2-y follow-up. Post hoc analysis excluding 4 open conversions showed lower operative time with RAKT (297 versus 320 min; P = 0.04) and lower 30-d (4.7% versus 23.4%; P = 0.02) and 90-d (7% versus 27.7%; P = 0.01) Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3 complications. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that RAKT is a safe alternative to OKT.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To describe the use of robotic-assisted transplant ureteral repair (RATUR) for treating transplant ureteral stricture (TUS) in 3 patients who had undergone robot assisted kidney transplant (RAKT). METHOD: We reviewed the medical records of 3 patients who experienced TUS after RAKT and who underwent RATUR between 2017 and 2020. The patients' RAKT, post-transplant clinical course, endourological interventions, reoperation, and recovery were assessed. RESULTS: All patients diagnosed with TUS presented with deterioration of kidney function after RAKT. Method of diagnosis included ultrasound, antegrade ureterogram, and CT scan. All 3 patients had a short (<1 cm) area of TUS and underwent RATUR. For 2 patients, distal strictures were bypassed with modified Lich-Gregoir ureteroneocystostomy reimplantation. One patient was treated with pyelo-ureterostomy to the contralateral native ureter. No intraoperative complications, conversions to open surgery, or significant operative blood loss requiring blood transfusion for any patient were observed. Also, no patients had urine leaks in the immediate or late postoperative period. After RATUR, 2 patients developed Clavien grade II complications with rectus hematoma or urinary tract infection. CONCLUSION: RATUR is a technically feasible operation for kidney transplant patients with TUS after RAKT. This procedure may provide the same benefits of open operation without promoting certain comorbidities that may occur from open surgical procedures.
