Observational Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2022. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
World J Transplant. Dec 18, 2022; 12(12): 405-414
Published online Dec 18, 2022. doi: 10.5500/wjt.v12.i12.405
Current practice of live donor nephrectomy in Turkey
Bakytbek Mankiev, Sanem Guler Cimen, Ismail Oskay Kaya, Sertac Cimen, Asir Eraslan
Bakytbek Mankiev, Sanem Guler Cimen, Department of General Surgery, Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi, Ankara 65100, Turkey
Ismail Oskay Kaya, Departments of Surgery, University of Health Sciences, Diskapi Yildirim Beyazit Training and Research Hospital, Ankara 65100, Turkey
Sertac Cimen, Department of Urology, Saglık Bilimleri Universitesi, Ankara 65100, Turkey
Asir Eraslan, Department of Urology, Somalia Turkish Training and Research Hospital, Mogadishu 23451, Somalia
Author contributions: Mankiev B and Cimen SG designed the research; Cimen S and Kaya IO performed the research; Eraslan A collected data; Cimen S analyzed data; Cimen SG wrote the paper.
Institutional review board statement: This study was reviewed and approved by the Ethical committee of Diskapi Research and Training Hospital Research Ethics Board on April 9, 2018.
Informed consent statement: The participants were informed about the questionnaire via e-mail, and after an online consent process the Survey Monkey questionnaire link was shared.
Conflict-of-interest statement: All authors report no relevant conflicts of interest for this article.
Data sharing statement: Dataset is private.
STROBE statement: The authors have read the STROBE Statement-checklist of items, and the manuscript was prepared and revised according to the STROBE Statement-checklist of items.
Open-Access: This article is an open-access article that was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: https://creativecommons.org/Licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Corresponding author: Sanem Guler Cimen, Doctor, FEBS, Adjunct Associate Professor, Department of General Surgery, Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi, Altindag, Ankara 65100, Turkey. sanem.cimen@sbu.edu.tr
Received: August 11, 2022
Peer-review started: August 11, 2022
First decision: September 5, 2022
Revised: October 31, 2022
Accepted: December 6, 2022
Article in press: December 6, 2022
Published online: December 18, 2022
Processing time: 127 Days and 4.1 Hours
Abstract
BACKGROUND

Over the last few years, the deceased donor organ donation rate was declined or remained stable, whereas the live donor organ donation rate has increased to compensate for the demand. Minimally invasive techniques for live donor nephrectomy (LDN) have also improved the live donor kidney donation rates. This increase has led to an interest in the surgical procedures used for LDN.

AIM

To evaluate the LDN techniques performed in Turkey, the structure of surgical teams, and the training received. Additionally, the number of kidney transplantations at different centers, the surgeon experience level, differences in surgical approach during donor surgeries, and outcomes were assessed.

METHODS

A questionnaire was sent to the Turkish Ministry of Health-accredited transplant centers. It inquired of the number of LDN surgeries, surgical techniques, complications, optimization protocols, the experience of surgeons, and the training. Descriptive statistics were outlined as follows: Discrete numeric variables were expressed as medians (minimum-maximum), while categorical variables were shown as numbers and percentages. As a result of the goodness-of-fit tests, if the significance of the differences between the groups in discrete numerical variables for which the parametric test statistical assumptions were not met, data were analyzed with the Mann Whitney U test and the χ2 test.

RESULTS

The questionnaire was sent to 72 transplant centers, all of which replied. Five centers that reported not performing LDN procedures were excluded. Responses from the remaining 67 centers were analyzed. In 2019, the median number of kidney transplants performed was 45, and the median number of kidney transplants from living donors was 28 (1-238). Eleven (16.5%) centers performed 5-10, while 34 (50.7%) centers performed more than 100 live donor kidney transplants in 2019. While 19 (28.4%) centers performed the LDN procedures using the open technique, 48 (71.6%) centers implemented minimally invasive techniques. Among the centers preferring minimally invasive techniques for LDN, eight (16.6%) used more than one surgical technique. The most and the least common surgical techniques were transperitoneal laparoscopic (43 centers, 89.6%) and single port laparoscopic LDN (1 center, 2.1%) techniques, respectively. A positive association was found between the performance of minimally invasive techniques and the case volume of a transplant center, both in the total number and live donor kidney transplants (15 vs 55, P = 0.001 and 9 vs 42, P ≤ 0001 respectively). The most frequently reported complication was postoperative atelectasis (n = 33, 49.2%). There was no difference between the techniques concerning complications except for the chyle leak.

CONCLUSION

Turkish transplant centers performed LDN surgeries successfully through various techniques. Centers implementing minimally invasive techniques had a relatively higher number of live donor kidney transplants in 2019.

Keywords: Kidney donation; Live donor nephrectomy; Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy; Donor complications; Minimally invasive techniques; Donation rate

Core Tip: This study showed that centers using minimally invasive techniques had a relatively higher number of live donor kidney transplants in 2019. It also demonstrated that Turkish transplant teams performed live donor nephrectomy surgeries successfully through various techniques by considering that donor safety and center experience were the essential determinants when selecting the optimal approach for each donor.