Table of Contents Table of Contents
Previous Page  214 320 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 214 320 Next Page
Page Background

uniform manner and information about questionnaires is

lacking, results could not be compared and adequate

conclusions could not be made.

3.3.5.

Postoperative pain

Brockschmidt et al

[20]

reported similar analgesic usage for

postoperative pain between COKT and MAKT. Kishore et al

[9]

observed that morphine consumption did not differ

significantly between HSI and MFI. Malinka et al

[33]

observed no significant differences in pain or analgesic

usage after 30 mo. Mun et al

[18]

found significantly lower

visual analogue scale scores at 8, 16, 24, and 48 h

postoperatively (all

p

<

0.05), in favor of MIVAKT.

Øyen et al

[35]

found no significant difference in

analgesic usage in the first 3 postoperative days for MIKT

compared with COKT. Modi et al

[13,22]

reported signifi-

cantly lower postoperative mean analgesic use (

p

= 0.005)

and visual analog scale scores (6, 12, and 24 h postopera-

tively,

p

= 0.002–0.001) in favor of LKT compared with GIBI.

Mean analgesic requirement in the first 24 h was higher in

LKT through transabdominal insertion compared with

transvaginal insertion (

p

= 0.046).

3.3.6.

Recovery and return to work/normal activity

Mun et al

[18]

found that time until return to work or

resumption of normal daily activity was significantly

shorter when MIVAKT was used (

p

0.001). No differences

were observed for total hospital stay.

Øyen et al

[35]

found significantly shorter hospitaliza-

tion for MIKT (8.2 vs 12.4 d,

p

= 0.02); on the contrary, Park

et al

[36]

reported no difference in hospital stay. No

significant difference was observed for hospital stay

between GIBI and LKT

[13,22]

. In RAKT techniques, hospital

stay varied between 8.2 and 13.6 d (mean). When

comparing GIBI and RAKT, duration of hospitalization

was not significantly different

[14] .

See also

Tables 4 and 5 .

Other reported outcomes included wound dehiscence,

lymphocele, hematoma, living versus cadaveric kidney

donor, and delayed graft function, none of which differed

significantly between groups.

3.4.

Discussion

The primary treatment in end-stage renal disease is kidney

transplantation. Therefore, the most important postopera-

tive outcome factors are graft and patient survival. In

included studies, no significant differences were found in

graft or patient survival. With the average graft survival of

10.6 yr, most patients with end-stage renal disease will

need second, third, or even fourth transplantation proce-

dures during their lifetime

[38]

. New techniques have not

yet been tested in patients with repeat kidney transplanta-

tion, andmay be more difficult due to adhesion formation or

disturbed anatomy, especially in a limited surgical field.

As extensively shown in previous research, the use of

living related kidney grafts results in better graft survival

and fewer postoperative complications

[39]

. Improved gene

matching, earlier transplantation, and shorter CIT have been

named as factors responsible for these postoperative results

[40–42] .

As shown in

Table 4

, five out of 18 studies did not

report on cadaveric or living-related grafts. In seven studies,

exclusively living related grafts were used, and in five

studies, both cadaveric and living related grafts were used.

Owing to the limited data available, it was not possible to

take this variable into account in our study. It is, however,

suspected that this variable might have influenced results.

These data should be reported in future studies.

Benefits of conventional open techniques include a

relatively short learning curve, inexpensive operating

equipment, and good exposure of the operating field

[5,6]

. Open techniques in donor nephrectomies have been

associated with an increased risk of wound complications

(SSI, abdominal wound dehiscence, and incisional hernia)

[1] .

Cosmetic results of conventional kidney transplantation

techniques were reported as poor in most studies

[7,9,13,18,20,21,33,34,36] .

In particular with the HSI, up

to 24% abdominal wall relaxation and up to 16% incisional

hernia have been reported, and results were significantly

worse compared with MLI and GIBI

[7,34]

. Cosmetic

outcomes have not been reported in a uniform manner;

therefore, no overlapping conclusions could be drawn.

In mini-incision techniques, incision length was short-

ened. Uneven scarring, incisional hernia, and SSI were less

seen after a median follow-up of 105 mo (range 27–192 mo)

compared with conventional techniques

[34]

. For MIOKT

and all minimally invasive techniques (see below), careful

back table preparation has been advised for this technique

because of the more narrow operating field and possibility

of graft placement issues. When deciding between minimal

invasive open techniques, patient characteristics such as

BMI, side of placement, and previous allograft placement

should be taken into account. Inmost techniques, a Gibson(-

like) incision was used, offering the possibility of lengthen-

ing the incision to a traditional open technique, if necessary

[13,19,20,37] .

For laparoscopic techniques, longer learning curves and

higher direct costs have been reported

[13]

. Direct costs

include expenses related to advanced laparoscopic equip-

ment including disposables. In addition, longer operating

times for the transperitoneal approach should be taken into

account, resulting in longer CIT, WIT and anastomosis time,

especially in the early learning curve

[13,22]

. During the

first six cases, two grafts were lost due to allograft torsion.

This is an indication that transition to laparoscopic and/or

robotic-assisted techniques can be challenging in KTx

surgery.

WIT is known to be a negative predictor for postopera-

tive creatinine levels, delayed graft function, and graft

survival

[24,25,43–45]

. More recently, Marzouk et al

[41]

reported that anastomosis time

>

29 min significantly

increases postoperative delayed graft function (3.5 ).

Weissenbacher et al

[46]

showed significant negative effects

of prolonged anastomosis time

>

30 min for patient and graft

survival. WIT can shorten over time, as Modi et al

[13]

showed significant improvement comparing vascular anas-

tomosis time between their first group of 30 LKT and second

group of 42 LKT. A trend was seen toward longer operating

time for LKT and RAKT compared with conventional and

E U R O P E A N U R O L O G Y 7 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 2 0 5 – 2 1 7

214