Introduction. Systemic heparinisation is advocated during laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (LDN) as a preventative measure against renal vascular thrombosis during the warm ischaemic interval. This study compares the outcome with and without the administration of systemic heparinisation. Methods. A retrospective analysis was performed on 186 consecutive LDN patients between April 2008 and November 2012. Systemic heparin (2000–3000？IU) was administered intravenously to donors (hep ). From January 2010, heparin was not used systemically in this group of LDN (no hep ). Outcome measures included donor and recipient complications, initial graft function, and 12 month graft survival. Results. The demographics of both heparinised and non-heparinised donors were similar. The warm ischaemic time (WIT) was comparable in both groups (WIT; hep versus no hep minutes; ). There was no difference in complication rates, no episodes of graft thrombosis, and no incidences of primary nonfunction in either group. Delayed graft function occurred in 4/109 and 1/77 (3.6% versus 1.2%; ) and there was no significant difference in graft survival ( ). Conclusion. Omitting systemic heparinisation during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is a feasible and safe approach that does not compromise donor or recipient outcome. 1. Introduction Minimally invasive techniques of surgery for live donor nephrectomy have been rapidly adopted across the UK. Unquestionably this has helped to increase the number of live donor kidney transplants [1]. Kidneys donated by living donors accounted for approximately 36% of all transplants performed in the UK in 2011-2012 [1]. The pure laparoscopic approach uses small incision sites which results in less postoperative pain, reduced hospital stay, improved cosmetics, and earlier return to work than the traditional open technique [2, 3]. This has reduced many of the disincentives associated live kidney donation. During laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (LDN) the kidney endures a period of warm ischaemic injury before it is retrieved and flushed with cold preservation solution [4]. Systemic heparin has been advocated during laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy as a preventative measure against intra-renal microthrombi formation during the warm ischaemic interval [5]. However, this subjects the patients to an increased risk of haemorrhage. Protamine sulphate can be used to reverse the effects of heparin but is associated with anaphylactic reactions and pulmonary hypertension [6, 7]. Systemic heparin was previously used for LDN in Leicester but in 2010 the
L. E. Ratner, J. Hiller, M. Sroka et al., “Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy removes disincentives to live donation,” Transplantation Proceedings, vol. 29, no. 8 A, pp. 3402–3403, 1997.
[3]
M. L. Nicholson, M. Kaushik, G. R. R. Lewis et al., “Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open donor nephrectomy,” The British Journal of Surgery, vol. 97, no. 1, pp. 21–28, 2010.
[4]
C. H. Wilson, A. Sanni, D. A. Rix, and N. A. Soomro, “Laparoscopic versus open nephrectomy for live kidney donors,” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, no. 11, Article ID CD006124, 2011.
[5]
A. D. Wright, T. A. Will, D. R. Holt, T. M. T. Turk, and K. T. Perry, “Laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy: a look at current trends and practice patterns at major transplant centers across the United States,” Journal of Urology, vol. 179, no. 4, pp. 1488–1492, 2008.
[6]
M. E. Weiss, D. Nyhan, Z. Peng et al., “Association of protamine IgE and IgG antibodies with life-threatening reactions to intravenous protamine,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 320, no. 14, pp. 886–892, 1989.
[7]
K. W. Park, “Protamine and protamine reactions,” International Anesthesiology Clinics, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 135–145, 2004.
[8]
A. K. Keller, T. M. Jorgensen, and B. Jespersen, “Identification of risk factors for vascular thrombosis may reduce early renal graft loss: a review of recent literature,” Journal of Transplantation, vol. 2012, Article ID 793461, 9 pages, 2012.
[9]
N. Simforoosh, A. Basiri, N. Shakhssalim, S. A. M. Ziaee, A. Tabibi, and S. M. M. H. Moghaddam, “Effect of warm ischemia on graft outcome in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy,” Journal of Endourology, vol. 20, no. 11, pp. 895–898, 2006.
[10]
F. Friedersdorff, I. Wolff, S. Deger et al., “No need for systemic heparinization during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy with short warm ischemia time,” World Journal of Urology, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 561–566, 2011.
[11]
L. F. C. Dols, N. F. M. Kok, and J. N. M. Ijzermans, “Live donor nephrectomy: a review of evidence for surgical techniques,” Transplant International, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 121–130, 2010.
[12]
A. K. Mandal, A. N. Kalligonis, C. Cohen, et al., “Should the right kidney be used in laparoscopic technique,” Transplantation, vol. 69, article 403, 2000.
[13]
A. Paramesh, R. Zhang, S. Florman et al., “Laparoscopic procurement of single versus multiple artery kidney allografts: is long-term graft survival affected?” Transplantation, vol. 88, no. 10, pp. 1203–1207, 2009.
[14]
M. L. Melcher, J. T. Carter, A. Posselt et al., “More than 500 consecutive laparoscopic donor nephrectomies without conversion or repeated surgery,” Archives of Surgery, vol. 140, no. 9, pp. 835–840, 2005.
[15]
C. Troppmann, K. Wiesmann, J. P. McVicar, B. M. Wolfe, and R. V. Perez, “Increased transplantation of kidneys with multiple renal arteries in the laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy era: surgical technique and surgical and nonsurgical donor and recipient outcomes,” Archives of Surgery, vol. 136, no. 8, pp. 897–907, 2001.
[16]
B. Kocak, A. J. Koffron, T. B. Baker et al., “Proposed classification of complications after live donor nephrectomy,” Urology, vol. 67, no. 5, pp. 927–931, 2006.
[17]
J. R. Leventhal, B. Kocak, P. R. O. Salvalaggio et al., “Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy 1997 to 2003: lessons learned with 500 cases at a single institution,” Surgery, vol. 136, no. 4, pp. 881–890, 2004.
