Background Although laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) represents the gold-standard technique for living donor nephrectomy, robotic donor nephrectomy (RDN) settled as another appealing minimally-invasive technique over the last decades. A comparison between LDN and RDN outcomes was carried out. Purpose of the study The primary aim was to compare the learning curves of RDN LDN, expressed by operative time, through spline regression and cumulative sum (CUSUM) models and explore the risk factors for longer surgeries. As a secondary study aim, we further analyzed perioperative outcomes focusing on intra- and postoperative complications, reporting major recipients’ outcomes. Materials and methods A retrospective database has been created including 154 patients RDN in Milan and 358 LDN in Padua, collecting demographic data (age, sex, BMI, previous abdominal surgeries), pre-operative data (hemoglobin, serum creatinine level, clearance creatinine with Cockcroft-Gault equation), intraoperative data (surgery technique, right/left kidney, vascular abnormalities, operation time, warm ischemia time, estimated blood loss, transfusions, any intraoperative complications) and post-operative data (days of hospitalization, creatinine and hemoglobin at the resignation, serum creatinine day30, any other complications) for donors and other data for recipients (serum creatinine day 1-3-7 and at the resignation, delayed graft function, rejection, thrombosis and urological complications). Comparisons between RDN and LDN groups were performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test for continuous variables, Chi-square test or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables and Cochran-Armitage trend test for ordinal variables. All the procedures consecutively performed by two senior surgeons [A.G. and L.F.] starting from the beginning of their experience with RDN and LDN were selected, in order to analyze the learning curves and compare the intra and postoperative outcomes of the two techniques. Results The study analyzed 512 procedures (154 RDN and 358 LDN) performed from 2010 and 2021 in two different high-volume Transplant Centers, respectively Milan and Padua. RDN group presented a higher prevalence of arterial variations (36.2 vs. 22.4%; p=0.001) compared to LDN cohort. No open conversions occurred; operative time (210 vs. 195 minutes; p=0.011) and warm ischemia time (230 vs. 180sec; p<0.001) were longer in RDN. Postoperative complication rate was similar (8.4% in RDN vs. 11.5% in LDN; p=0.49); RDN group showed shorter hospital stay (4 vs. 5 days; p<0.001). Spline regression models depicted a faster learning curve in RDN group (p=0.0002). Accordingly, CUSUM analysis highlighted a turning point after about 50 procedures among RDN cohort and after about 100 procedures among LDN group. Higher BMI resulted as an independent risk factor for longer operative time for both techniques; multiple arteries significantly prolonged operative time in LDN, while RDN was longer in right kidney procurements; both procedures were equally shortened by growing surgical experience. Conclusions RDN grants a faster learning curve and improves multiple vessels handling. Incidence of postoperative complications was low for both techniques, thus demonstrating equal safety for both donor surgeries.
Background: sebbene l’approccio laparoscopico sia universalmente riconosciuto come il gold standard per la nefrectomia a scopo di donazione nel trapianto di rene da donatore vivente, negli ultimi decenni la nefrectomia robotica si sta affermando come una valida alternativa tra gli approcci mini-invasivi. È stato effettuato un confronto tra un gruppo di donatori sottoposti a nefrectomia con tecnica laparoscopica (LDN) e un gruppo di donatori sottoposti a nefrectomia con tecnica robotica (RDN) in due diversi centri Italiani ad alto volume. Scopo dello studio: lo scopo primario dello studio è stato quello di confrontare la learning curve della tecnica robotica con quella della tecnica laparoscopica, analizzando i tempi operatori delle singole procedure chirurgiche e, in caso di prolungati tempi operatori, di valutarne eventuali fattori di rischio. Come scopo secondario sono stati analizzati gli outcomes perioperatori di tutti i donatori di rene, esaminando in particolare le complicanze intra- e post-operatorie; sono stati infine analizzati anche i principali outcomes post-operatori dei relativi pazienti sottoposti a trapianto di rene da donatore vivente. Materiali e metodi: sono stati raccolti i dati di 154 pazienti sottoposti a RDN nel centro trapianti di Milano-Niguarda e 358 pazienti sottoposti a LDN presso il centro di Padova. Le variabili analizzate sono state: dati demografici, pre-operatori, intraoperatori e post-operatori dei pazienti sottoposti a nefrectomia e dati di outcome post-operatorio dei rispettivi riceventi di trapianto. Tutte le procedure chirurgiche prese in analisi sono state eseguite consecutivamente da due chirurghi [A.G. e L.F.] a partire dall'inizio della loro esperienza, al fine di analizzare le curve di apprendimento delle due diverse tecniche chirurgiche (attraverso la CUSUM analisi) e valutare l’associazione di eventuali fattori di rischio per prolungati tempi operatori (attraverso un modello di regressione lineare uni e multi-variata). Risultati: lo studio ha analizzato 512 procedure (154 RDN e 358 LDN) eseguite dal 2010 al 2021 in due diversi Centri Trapianti ad alto volume, rispettivamente Milano Niguarda e Padova. Il gruppo RDN ha presentato una maggiore prevalenza di anomalie arteriose (36,2 vs. 22,4%; p=0,001) rispetto alla coorte LDN. Non si sono verificate conversioni in tecnica open in nessuno dei due gruppi; il tempo operatorio (210 vs. 195 minuti; p=0,011) e il tempo di ischemia calda (230 vs. 180 sec; p<0,001) è risultato più lungo nel gruppo dei RDN. Il tasso di complicanze postoperatorie, è stato simile fra le due coorti (8,4% in RDN vs. 11,5% in LDN; p=0,49). Il gruppo RDN ha mostrato una degenza ospedaliera più breve (4 vs. 5 giorni; p<0,001). È stata evidenziata una curva di apprendimento più rapida nel gruppo RDN rispetto al gruppo LDN (p=0,0002). L'analisi CUSUM ha dimostrato una stabilità e una successiva riduzione dei tempi operatori dopo circa 50 procedure nella coorte RDN e dopo circa 100 procedure nel gruppo LDN. Un indice di massa corporea più elevato è risultato essere un fattore di rischio indipendente per tempi operatori operatori prolungati in entrambe le tecniche chirurgiche; la presenza di arterie multiple ha significativamente prolungato i tempi operatori della LDN, mentre il prelievo del rene destro si è associato a tempi operatori maggiori nel gruppo RDN. Entrambe le procedure chirurgiche hanno evidenziato una riduzione dei relativi tempi operatori in accordo con la crescita dell’esperienza chirurgica del primo operatore. Conclusioni: la tecnica RDN garantisce un apprendimento più rapido e facilita la procedura chirurgica in caso di prelievo di rene con arterie multiple. L'incidenza di complicanze postoperatorie è stata bassa in entrambi i gruppi, dimostrando così che la nefrectomia robotica può essere considerata un’alternativa valida e sicura alla tecnica laparoscopica nella donazione di rene ai fini di trapianto.
NEFRECTOMIA LAPAROSCOPICA vs ROBOT-ASSISTITA nella donazione di rene da vivente: analisi bicentrica tra due centri italiani ad alto volume
RAMINA, PIETRO
2022/2023
Abstract
Background Although laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) represents the gold-standard technique for living donor nephrectomy, robotic donor nephrectomy (RDN) settled as another appealing minimally-invasive technique over the last decades. A comparison between LDN and RDN outcomes was carried out. Purpose of the study The primary aim was to compare the learning curves of RDN LDN, expressed by operative time, through spline regression and cumulative sum (CUSUM) models and explore the risk factors for longer surgeries. As a secondary study aim, we further analyzed perioperative outcomes focusing on intra- and postoperative complications, reporting major recipients’ outcomes. Materials and methods A retrospective database has been created including 154 patients RDN in Milan and 358 LDN in Padua, collecting demographic data (age, sex, BMI, previous abdominal surgeries), pre-operative data (hemoglobin, serum creatinine level, clearance creatinine with Cockcroft-Gault equation), intraoperative data (surgery technique, right/left kidney, vascular abnormalities, operation time, warm ischemia time, estimated blood loss, transfusions, any intraoperative complications) and post-operative data (days of hospitalization, creatinine and hemoglobin at the resignation, serum creatinine day30, any other complications) for donors and other data for recipients (serum creatinine day 1-3-7 and at the resignation, delayed graft function, rejection, thrombosis and urological complications). Comparisons between RDN and LDN groups were performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test for continuous variables, Chi-square test or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables and Cochran-Armitage trend test for ordinal variables. All the procedures consecutively performed by two senior surgeons [A.G. and L.F.] starting from the beginning of their experience with RDN and LDN were selected, in order to analyze the learning curves and compare the intra and postoperative outcomes of the two techniques. Results The study analyzed 512 procedures (154 RDN and 358 LDN) performed from 2010 and 2021 in two different high-volume Transplant Centers, respectively Milan and Padua. RDN group presented a higher prevalence of arterial variations (36.2 vs. 22.4%; p=0.001) compared to LDN cohort. No open conversions occurred; operative time (210 vs. 195 minutes; p=0.011) and warm ischemia time (230 vs. 180sec; p<0.001) were longer in RDN. Postoperative complication rate was similar (8.4% in RDN vs. 11.5% in LDN; p=0.49); RDN group showed shorter hospital stay (4 vs. 5 days; p<0.001). Spline regression models depicted a faster learning curve in RDN group (p=0.0002). Accordingly, CUSUM analysis highlighted a turning point after about 50 procedures among RDN cohort and after about 100 procedures among LDN group. Higher BMI resulted as an independent risk factor for longer operative time for both techniques; multiple arteries significantly prolonged operative time in LDN, while RDN was longer in right kidney procurements; both procedures were equally shortened by growing surgical experience. Conclusions RDN grants a faster learning curve and improves multiple vessels handling. Incidence of postoperative complications was low for both techniques, thus demonstrating equal safety for both donor surgeries.File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
Ramina_Pietro.pdf
accesso aperto
Dimensione
2.2 MB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
2.2 MB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri |
The text of this website © Università degli studi di Padova. Full Text are published under a non-exclusive license. Metadata are under a CC0 License
https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12608/47029