Objectives: To introduce our modified retroperitoneoscopic living-donor nephrectomy (RPLDN) techniques and estimate the learning curve. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 121 consecutive donors who underwent modified RPLDN performed by a single surgeon. While the surgeon controlled the renal vessels, one hand was inserted through an abdominal incision for assistance. The kidney was manually retrieved through the abdominal incision. The learning curve was evaluated using the cumulative sum (CUSUM) method, which was a graphical method showing changes in individual surgical performance. Results: The mean operating time and warm ischemic time (WIT) were 129.4 min and 154.5 s, respectively. The mean estimated blood loss (EBL) was 44.4 mL. Regarding intraoperative complications, no open conversions or blood transfusions were required. The CUSUM learning curve included the following 3 unique phases: phase 1 (the initial 32 cases), representing the initial learning curve; phase 2 (the middle 38 cases), representing expert competence; and phase 3 (the final 51 cases), representing mastery. Conclusions: Our modified method has the advantages of a short operating time, an optimized WIT, a low EBL, and acceptable complication rates. The surgeon completed the initial learning phase of RPLDN after 32 cases and could effectively perform RPLDN after 70 cases.

Journal Section:
Original Paper
Keywords:
Modified retroperitoneoscopic living-donor nephrectomy, Learning curve, Cumulative sum analysis
1.
Bokhari MB, Patel CB, Ramos-Valadez DI, Ragupathi M, Haas EM: Learning curve for robotic-assisted laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Surg Endosc 2011; 25: 855–860.
2.
Chaput de Saintonge DM, Vere DW: Why don’t doctors use cusums? Lancet 1974; 1: 120–121.
3.
Segev DL, Muzaale AD, Caffo BS, Mehta SH, Singer AL, Taranto SE, McBride MA, Montgomery RA: Perioperative mortality and long-term survival following live kidney donation. JAMA 2010; 303: 959–966.
4.
Ng ZQ, Musk G, Rea A, He B: Transition from laparoscopic to retroperitoneoscopic approach for live donor nephrectomy. Surg Endosc 2018; 32: 2793–2799.
5.
Nicholson ML, Kaushik M, Lewis GR, Brook NR, Bagul A, Kay MD, Harper SJ, Elwell R, Veitch PS: Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open donor nephrectomy. Br J Surg 2010; 97: 21–28.
6.
Simforoosh N, Basiri A, Shakhssalim N, Gooran S, Tabibi A, Khoshdel A, Ziaee SA: Long-term graft function in a randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic versus open donor nephrectomy. Exp Clin Transplant 2012; 10: 428–432.
7.
Andersen MH, Mathisen L, Oyen O, Edwin B, Digernes R, Kvarstein G, Tønnessen TI, Wahl AK, Hanestad BR, Fosse E: Postoperative pain and convalescence in living kidney donors-laparoscopic versus open donor nephrectomy: a randomized study. Am J Transplant 2006; 6: 1438–1443.
8.
Pal BC, Modi PR, Rizvi SJ, Chauhan R, Kumar S, Nagarajan R, Kaushal D, Kute VB, Trivedi HL: The learning curve of pure retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy. Int J Organ Transplant Med 2017; 8: 180–185.
9.
Levey AS, Greene T, Kusek JW, Beck GJ, Group MS: Simplified equation to predict glomerular filtration rate from serum creatinine. J Am Soc Nephrol 2000.
10.
Tefekli A, Ali Karadag M, Tepeler K, Sari E, Berberoglu Y, Baykal M, Sarilar O, Muslumanoglu AY: Classification of percutaneous nephrolithotomy complications using the modified clavien grading system: looking for a standard. Eur Urol 2008; 53: 184–190.
11.
Racusen LC, Solez K, Colvin RB, Bonsib SM, Castro MC, Cavallo T, Croker BP, Demetris AJ, Drachenberg CB, Fogo AB, Furness P, Gaber LW, Gibson IW, Glotz D, Goldberg JC, Grande J, Halloran PF, Hansen HE, Hartley B, Hayry PJ, Hill CM, Hoffman EO, Hunsicker LG, Lindblad AS, Yamaguchi Y: The Banff 97 working classification of renal allograft pathology. Kidney Int 1999; 55: 713–723.
12.
Fan Y, Kong G, Meng Y, Tan S, Wei K, Zhang Q, Jin J: Comparative assessment of surgeons’ task performance and surgical ergonomics associated with conventional and modified flank positions: a simulation study. Surg Endosc 2014; 28: 3249–3256.
13.
Park JS, Ahn HK, Na J, Lee HH, Yoon YE, Yoon MG, Han WK: Cumulative sum analysis of the learning curve for video-assisted minilaparotomy donor nephrectomy in healthy kidney donors. Medicine (Baltimore) 2018; 97:e0560.
14.
Zhang B, Shen C, Han WK, Yu W: Comparison of clinicopathologic characteristics of urothelial carcinoma between patients after renal transplantation and on dialysis. Transplantation 2014; 98: 552–556.
15.
Ratner LE, Ciseck LJ, Moore RG, Cigarroa FG, Kaufman HS, Kavoussi LR: Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. Transplantation 1995; 60: 1047–1049.
16.
Martin GL, Guise AI, Bernie JE, Bargman V, Goggins W, Sundaram CP: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: effects of learning curve on surgical outcomes. Transplant Proc 2007; 39: 27–29.
17.
Gill IS, Uzzo RG, Hobart MG, Streem SB, Goldfarb DA, Noble MJ: Laparoscopic retroperitoneal live donor right nephrectomy for purposes of allotransplantation and autotransplantation. J Urol 2000; 164: 1500–1504.
18.
Özdemir-van Brunschot DM, Koning GG, van Laarhoven KC, Ergün M, van Horne SB, Rovers MM, Warlé MC: A comparison of technique modifications in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLos One 2015; 10:e0121131.
19.
He B, Bremner A, Han Y, Hamdorf JM: Determining the superior technique for living-donor nephrectomy: the laparoscopic intraperitoneal versus the retroperitoneoscopic approach. Exp Clin Transplant 2016; 14: 129–138.
20.
Wolf JS Jr, Moon TD, Nakada SY: Hand assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy: comparison to standard laparoscopic nephrectomy. J Urol 1998; 160: 22–27.
21.
Wadström J, Biglarnia A, Gjertsen H, Sugitani A, Fronek J: Introducing hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy: learning curves and development based on 413 consecutive cases in four centers. Transplantation 2011; 91: 462–469.
22.
Ratner LE, Montgomery RA, Kavoussi LR: Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. A review of the first 5 years. Urol Clin North Am 2001; 28: 709–719.
23.
Price DD, McGrath PA, Rafii A, Buckingham B: The validation of visual analogue scales as ratio scale measures for chronic and experimental pain. Pain 1983; 17: 45–56.
24.
Goh YS, Cheong PS, Lata R, Goh A, Vathsala A, Li MK, Tiong HY: A necessary step toward kidney donor safety: the transition from locking polymer clips to transfixion techniques in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Transplant Proc 2014; 46: 310–313.
25.
Modi P, Goel R, Dodia S: Retroperitoneoscopic left donor nephrectomy: use of Hem-o-Lok clips for control of renal pedicle. J Endourol 2007; 21: 1029–1031.
26.
Ma L, Ye J, Huang Y, Hou X, Zhao L, Wang G: Retroperitoneoscopic live-donor nephrectomy: 5-year single-center experience in China. Int J Urol 2010; 17: 158–162.
27.
Friedman AL, Peters TG, Jones KW, Boulware LE, Ratner LE: Fatal and nonfatal hemorrhagic complications of living kidney donation. Ann Surg 2006; 243: 126–130.
28.
Elmaraezy A, Abushouk AI, Kamel M, Negida A, Naser O: Should hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic nephrectomy replace the standard laparoscopic technique for living donor nephrectomy? A meta-analysis. Int J Surg 2017; 40: 83–90.
29.
Page E: Continuous inspection schemes. Biometrika 1954; 41: 100–115.
30.
Maguire T, Mayne CJ, Terry T, Tincello DG: Analysis of the surgical learning curve using the cumulative sum (CUSUM) method. Neurourol Urodyn 2013; 32: 964–967.
31.
MacKenzie KR, Aning J: Defining competency in flexible cystoscopy: a novel approach using cumulative sum analysis. BMC Urol 2016; 16: 31.
32.
Chin EH, Hazzan D, Herron DM, Gaetano JN, Ames SA, Bromberg JS, Edye M: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: intraoperative safety, immediate morbidity, and delayed complications with 500 cases. Surg Endosc 2007; 21: 521–526.
33.
Wahba R, Kleinert R, Hellmich M, Heiermann N, Dieplinger G, Schlößer HA, Buchner D, Kurschat C, Stippel DL: Optimizing a living kidney donation program: transition to hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic living donor nephrectomy and introduction of a passive polarizing three-dimensional display system. Surg Endosc 2017; 31: 2577–2585.
© 2018 S. Karger AG, Basel
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
2018
You do not currently have access to this content.