Should the indications for laparascopic live donor nephrectomy of the right kidney be the same as for the open procedure? Anomalous left renal vasculature is not a contraindiction to laparoscopic left donor nephrectomy

Can right-sided hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy be advocated above standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a randomized pilot study

Endoscopic techniques have contributed to early recovery and increased quality of life (QOL) of live kidney donors. However, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) may have its limitations, and hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy (HARP) has been introduced, mainly as a potentially safer alternative. In a randomized fashion, we explored the feasibility and potential benefits of HARP for right-sided donor nephrectomy in a referral center with longstanding expertise on the standard laparoscopic approach. Forty donors were randomly assigned to either LDN or HARP. Primary outcome was operating time, and secondary outcomes included QOL, complications, pain, morphine requirement, blood loss, warm ischemia time, and hospital stay. Follow-up time was 1 year. Skin-to-skin time did not significantly differ between both groups (162 vs. 158 min, P = 0.98). As compared to LDN, HARP resulted in a shorter warm ischemia time (2.8 vs. 3.9 min, P < 0.001) and increased blood loss (187 vs. 50 ml, P < 0.001). QOL, complication rate, pain, or hospital stay was not significantly different between the groups. Right-sided HARP is feasible but does not confer clear benefits over standard right-sided LDN yet. Further studies should explore the value of HARP in difficult cases such as the obese donor and the value of HARP for transplantation centers starting a live kidney donation program (Dutch Trial Register number: NTR3096). Nevertheless, HARP is a valuable addition to the surgical armamentarium in live donor surgery.

Impact of right-sided nephrectomy on long-term outcomes in retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy at single center

Objective. To assess the long-term graft survival of right-sided retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy (RPLDN), we compared the outcomes of right- and left-sided RPLDN. Methods. Five hundred and thirty-three patients underwent live donor renal transplantation with allografts procured by RPLDN from July 2001 to August 2010 at our institute. Of these, 24 (4.5%) cases were selected for right-sided RPLDN (R-RPLDN) according to our criteria for donor kidney selection. Study variables included peri- and postoperative clinical data. Results. No significant differences were found in the recipients' postoperative graft function and incidence of slow graft function. Despite significant increased warm ischemic time (WIT: mean 5.9 min versus 4.7 min, P < 0.001) in R-RPLDN compared to that in L-RPLDN, there was no significant difference between the two groups regarding long-term patient and graft survival. The complication rate in R-RPLDN was not significantly different compared to that in L-RPLDN (17% versus 6.5%, P = 0.132). No renal vein thrombosis was experienced in either groups. Conclusions. Although our study was retrospective and there was only a small number of R-RPLDN patients, R-RPLDN could be an option for laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy because of similar results, with the sole exception of WIT, in L-RPLDN, and its excellent long-term graft outcomes.

Robotic-assistance does not enhance standard laparoscopic technique for right-sided donor nephrectomy

Robotic-assistance did not improve outcomes associated with laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in this study.

Objective:

To examine donor and recipient outcomes after right-sided robotic-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (RALDN) compared with standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) and to determine whether robotic-assistance enhances LDN.

Materials & Methods:

From December 2005 to January 2011, 25 patients underwent right-sided LDN or RALDN. An IRB-approved retrospective review was performed of both donor and recipient medical charts. Primary endpoints included both intraoperative and postoperative outcomes.

Results:

Twenty right-sided LDNs and 5 RALDNs were performed during the study period. Neither estimated blood loss (76.4mL vs. 30mL, P=.07) nor operative time (231 min vs. 218 min, P=.61) were significantly different between either group (LDN vs. RALDN). Warm ischemia time for LDN was 2.6 min vs. 3.8 min for RALDN (P=.44). Donor postoperative serum estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFR) were similar (53 vs. 59.6mL/min/1.73m², LDN vs. RALDN, P=.26). For the recipient patients, posttransplant eGFR were similar at 6 months (53.4 vs. 59.8mL/min/1.73m², LDN vs. RALDN, P=.53).

Conclusion:

In this study, robotic-assistance did not improve outcomes associated with LDN. Larger prospective studies are needed to confirm any perceived benefit of RALDN.

Laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy: is there a difference between using a left or a right kidney?

BACKGROUND

The goal of this study was to review the results of 279 laparoscopic living donor nephrectomies (LLDN) regarding outcomes of using the left or the right kidney.

METHODS

Among 279 patients who underwent LLDN between August 1998 and April 2009, 260 underwent a left (group L) and 19, a right (group R) nephrectomy. The two groups were compared regarding intra- and postoperative parameters, including pre- and postoperative renal function, length of surgery, conversion to an open approach, delayed graft function, and complications.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding preoperative glomerular filtration rate (L = 129.5 ± 32 mL/min versus group R = 127.3 ± 26 mL/min), length of surgery (group L = 228 ± 58 minutes versus group R = 226 ± 62 minutes group), postoperative donor creatinine (group L = 1.36 ± 0.9 mg/dL versus group R = 1.48 ± 0.8 mg/dL), conversion to open (group L = 6.6% versus group R = 5.3%), delayed graft function (group L = 7.2% versus group R = 6.3%) and recipient postoperative creatinine at 1 month (group L = 1.54 ± 1.4 mg/dL versus group R = 1.32 ± 1.1 mg/dL). There were three intraoperative donor complications in group L (bleeding in one donor required transfusion), and none in group R. Similarly, there was a great albeit not a significant difference in the number of major postoperative donor complications among group L (n = 16) versus group R (n = 2). The right kidney was chosen because of the number of vessels (n = 5), presence of cysts (n = 5), size and renal function (n = 6), presence of renal stones (n = 2), and tortuous ureter (n = 1). The reasons for conversion to open included bleeding, anatomic issues, and presence of adhesions. It should be noted that during the last 3 years there were no conversions to open, whereas the only conversion among group R was the first case.

CONCLUSIONS

Intra- and postoperative parameters were comparable between the groups. Considering the limitations of the small sample size of right LLDNs in this study, it appears that it is as safe and effective as a left procedure. The learning curve is extremely important, as can be seen by the lack of conversion in the last 3 years.

Complication arising from a duplicated inferior vena cava following laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy: a case report

Selecting a kidney for living donor nephrectomy is driven by the tenet that donors are left with the higher functioning kidney. Traditionally, the left kidney is used because it has a longer renal vein, which aids anastamosis, and has an easier surgical approach. Anomalous left renal vasculature is not considered a contraindication to living donor nephrectomy. In the case of duplicated inferior vena cava, no specific considerations have been reported. We present a 42-year-old patient with infrarenal duplication of the vena cava who underwent laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy. His postoperative course was complicated by painful scrotal swelling necessitating multiple emergency room visits. Ultrasonography revealed bilateral hydroceles 5 weeks after surgery, which resolved with the use of a scrotal sling. Intraoperative ligation of a visibly dilated left gonadal vein was the likely etiology. Careful consideration should be taken in living donor nephrectomy in patients with duplication of inferior vena cava.

Nine-yr experience of 700 hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomies in Japan

OBJECTIVE

We reviewed the introduction of a new, minimally invasive, live kidney donation program in our department.

METHODS

The operating times of 700 consecutive hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomies (HALDN) conducted from February 2001 to April 2010 were examined. The risk factors for prolonging operating times were analyzed and major surgical barriers in HALDN investigated.

RESULTS

All procedures were successfully performed without the requirement for conversion to open surgery or blood transfusion. The overall prevalence of perioperative complications was 3.0%, with no mortality, in this non-obese donor population with mean body mass index (BMI) as low as 23.2 ± 3.2 kg/m(2) . After the initial learning curve, a second learning plateau was detected until around case 300. Multivariate analyses showed that the significant risk factors were male sex, graft weight, number of renal arteries, right nephrectomy, and previous epigastric surgery (p < 0.05). HALDN provided direct handling of the surgical field, secure vascular control, safe manipulation of adhesive tissues, and served to maintain surgical safety. Mean values of the BMI of donors had a significant positive correlation with the prevalence of complications between large studies (p = 0.042).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy was safely introduced and established in a single institution with the help of the hand-assistance method.

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: The Middle East experience

OBJECTIVES

To summarize the experience of the Middle East in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN), to discuss the associated advantages and salient problems, to examine the learning curve encountered compared with that of the pioneering centres in the West, and the contribution of the regional centres to the worldwide experience.

METHODS

We searched Medline and PubMed for all centres performing LDN in the Middle East. Questionnaires were e-mailed to the regional transplantation centres, and programme directors, and leading urological and transplant surgeons were contacted by telephone.

RESULTS

LDN in the Middle East was first introduced in 2000; this approach has been pioneered and practised at seven transplant centres within five countries in the region, and was restricted to only three Arab countries, i.e. Lebanon, Egypt and Kuwait. Data collection yielded a total of 888 procedures over one decade, representing only 2% of the total of ≈50,000 transplants during the same period. Despite variability of accurate reporting the overall outcomes were similar to those of open DN. The spectrum of complications was comparable to that from major centres in the USA during their learning curve.

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of LDN in the Middle East has been gratifying. The relative hesitancy in introducing LDN in the rest of the Arab Middle East is multifaceted. The advantages conferred to the donor underscore the need for further expansion of this approach for kidney retrieval.

Risk factors for delayed graft function after hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

BACKGROUND

Delayed graft function (DGF) has a negative effect on the results of living-donor kidney transplantation.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate potential risk factors for DGF.

METHODS

This prospective study included 200 consecutive living donors and their recipients between January 2002 and July 2007. Delayed graft function was defined as need for dialysis within the first postoperative week.

RESULTS

Delayed graft function was diagnosed in 12 patients (6%). Intraoperative complications occurred in 10 donors (5%), and postoperative complications in 24 donors (13.5%). One-year kidney graft survival with vs without DGF was 52% and 98%, respectively (P < .002). In donors, 2 univariate risk factors for DGF identified were lower counts per second at peak activity during scintigraphy, and multiple renal veins. In recipients, only 2 or more kidney transplantations and occurrence of an acute rejection episode were important factors. At multivariate analysis, increased risk of DGF was associated with the presence of multiple renal veins (odds ratio, 151.57; 95% confidence interval, 2.53-9093.86) and an acute rejection episode (odds ratio, 78.87; 95% confidence interval, 3.17-1959.62).

CONCLUSION

Hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is a safe procedure. The presence of multiple renal veins and occurrence of an acute rejection episode are independent risk factors for DGF.

Right-sided transperitoneal hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: is there an issue with the renal vessels?

OBJECTIVE

Short right renal vessels might complicate kidney transplantation, thus causing traction and difficulties during anastomosis. Single-center prospective comparison of right- and left-sided transperitoneal hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN) is presented.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eighty-two living kidney donors underwent HALDN between 2003 and 2008. Right-sided HALDN was performed in 46 living kidney donors. The operative technique of right-sided HALDN was modified to obtain the maximum length of right renal vessels. Outcome data in donors including quality of life as well as graft outcome in recipients were prospectively collected.

RESULTS

All procedures were laparoscopically completed with no conversion. Mean operative time was 127 minutes (vs. 138 minutes in left HALDN, p = 0.08). The mean warm ischemia time was 41 seconds (vs. 39 seconds in left HALDN, p = 0.23). There was no renal artery or vein thrombosis in any of the grafts. Mean blood loss was 81 mL (vs. 92 mL in left HALDN, p = 0.09). Hospital discharge was on an average of 3.6 days postoperative. Delayed graft function occurred in two recipients: one in the left group and the other in the right group. One-year graft survival rate was 95% in the left group versus 96.9% in the right group (p = 0.08). Further, no statistically significant difference in serum levels of creatinine was seen between the groups 1 year after the transplantation.

CONCLUSIONS

Right HALDN is technically safe and feasible and results in convenient extension of right renal vessels to full length with no increased incidence of vascular thrombosis.

CT angiography of the renal circulation

Although catheter angiography remains the accepted gold standard for imaging of the renal vascular system, rapid progress in cross-sectional imaging techniques has caused a paradigm shift in many diagnostic algorithms toward noninvasive techniques such as computed tomographic angiography (CTA). CTA's cross-sectional imaging techniques provide an opportunity for comprehensive renal investigation that would be impossible with angiography alone. While other competing noninvasive technologies such as ultrasound and magnetic resonance angiography can be used successfully in renal imaging, the benefits of CTA are substantial, including high spatial and temporal resolution, widespread availability, implantable device compatibility, and easy technical reproducibility. This article describes the technical considerations relevant to CTA of the renal vascular system, postprocessing algorithms for volumetric data, and numerous specific applications.

Multidetector computed tomography with triple-bolus contrast medium administration protocol for preoperative anatomical and functional assessment of potential living renal donors

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) with a triple-bolus contrast administration protocol for preoperative anatomical and functional assessment of living renal donors.

METHODS

Fifty-five potential living renal donors underwent MDCT of which 27 proceeded to donor nephrectomy. A triple-bolus contrast administration protocol was used for simultaneous acquisition of arterial, nephrographic, and excretory phases. MDCT images were independently reviewed in random order by two radiologists blinded to surgical anatomy findings. Diagnostic accuracy for anatomical variants was quantified by sensitivity and specificity. Differential renal function (DRF) was derived from MDCT for 54 patients and compared with technetium-99 m dimercaptosuccinic acid renography (Tc-99 m DMSA).

RESULTS

All triple-bolus MDCT examinations were technically adequate. Accessory renal arteries and veins were identified at surgery in 33% (n = 9/27) and 22% (n = 6/27) of donor kidneys. The mean difference between MDCT-derived DRF and DMSA was 0.8% (95% CI 0.1-1.6) with 95% limits of agreement of -4.6% (95% CI -3.3 to -5.9) to 6.3% (95% CI 5.0-7.6). MDCT delivered a mean (SD, range) radiation dose of 9.5 (3.6, 3.6-17.3) mSv.

CONCLUSION

MDCT with a triple-bolus contrast administration provides accurate anatomical and functional evaluation of living renal donors.

Evaluation of cadaveric renal vein lengths and their extension loss with three types of ligature and section

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The right kidney has been less frequently used in live donor nephrectomy, because of the shorter length of the right renal vein (RRV) that is associated with technical difficulties and higher rates of venous thrombosis. In live open donor or deceased donor transplant nephrectomy, an additional cuff of the inferior vena cava is usually removed, but this is a more difficult and risky maneuver in laparoscopic nephrectomy. For this reason, laparoscopic right nephrectomy (LRN) for renal transplantation (RT) is not frequently performed in most medical institutions. We evaluate the difference between RRV and left renal vein (LRV) lengths in cadavers, as harvested for RT by three clamping methods. Our objective was to obtain information that could clarify when LRN for RT should be encouraged or avoided with regard to conventional surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ninety adult fresh unfrozen cadavers were randomly divided into three groups of 30, according to the clamping device used: Satinsky, stapler, and Hem-o-lok clip. The abdominal viscera were removed through a median xyphopubic incision, and the veins were measured on the bench. Two lateral limits were used: The renal hilum and the tangential line of the renal poles. As for medial limits, the inferior vena cava or the laparoscopic clipping device on the RRV were used on the right side, while on the LRV, the medial border of the emergence of the adrenal vein was considered. After section of the renal vein, a slight traction of the extremity was applied for the measurement. All measurements were obtained three times using a metallic millimetric ruler, and the arithmetic mean was considered. The chi-square, one-way analysis of variance, and paired t tests were used for statistical analysis. Statistical significance was accepted at P <or= 0.05.

RESULTS

The groups of cadavers were homogeneous in demographic characteristics. Regardless of the clamping method and considering the useful length of the LRV, the RRV was statistically smaller. The evaluation of the vein length did not depend on the lateral limit considered. Independent of the clamping method, on both sides, the lengths after the vein section were larger than before the section, a fact attributed to traction. Use of a stapler and a single Hem-o-lok presented the same waste of vein length on the right side. On average, the RRV was 13.7% shorter than the LRV.

CONCLUSIONS

With the wide acceptance of laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy, the length difference between the veins of both kidneys is an important issue, and the right kidney is therefore used less than the left, compared with conventional surgery. This article represents the first step to quantify the anatomic length of renal veins in different situations. Certainly, more imagenologic or surgical studies should be carried out before decisions can be made for better selection of patients for LRN.

[Renal live donor. Open and laparoscopic experience at La Paz Hospital]

Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy is a rare operation in our country because the complexity of the technique and the expansion of the cadaveric donor. We present our open and laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy from 1984.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

From 1984 to 2007 we have done 84 live donor nephrectomies; 64 open, 20 laparoscopic surgeries. The transperitoneal approach is preferred in laparoscopy and lumbotomy for the open surgery.

RESULTS

In the open technique the operating time is 112 min (70-155), ischaemia time 20 seconds (15-47) and postoperative hospital stay 4,8 days (3-9). Laparoscopic cases, the operating time is 146 min (90-210), ischaemia time 3 min 15 sec (2-3, 25 min) and postoperative hospital stay 3,4 days (2-9).

CONCLUSIONS

The laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy is a difficult and demanding technique. It should be done by experienced team in laparoscopic renal surgery. The kidney from a live donor is a very good alternative for the cronic renal failure. It should be offered in our main hospitals.

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a plea for the right-sided approach

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) has become the preferred procedure for live donor nephrectomy. Most transplant surgeons are reluctant toward right-sided LDN (R-LDN) fearing short vessels and renal vein thrombosis.

METHODS

In our institution, selection of the appropriate kidney for donation was based on the same criteria that traditionally governed open donor nephrectomy. All intraoperative and postoperative data were prospectively recorded.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty-nine R-LDNs (56%) and 124 left-sided LDNs (L-LDN, 44%) were performed. Demographics did not significantly differ. Complications occurred in 10 (6%) vs. 23 (19%) procedures (R-LDN vs. L-LDN, P=0.002), resulting in 2 and 11 conversions, respectively. Right-sided kidney donation was the only independent preventative factor for complications in multivariate analysis (P=0.008, Odds ratio 0.33). R-LDN was associated with shorter operation time (mean 202 vs. 247 min, P<0.001) and less blood loss (139 vs. 294 mL, P<0.001). Hospital stay was 3 days in both groups. With regard to the recipients, the second warm ischemia time was similar (29 vs. 28 min, P=0.699).

CONCLUSIONS

R-LDN is faster and safer than L-LDN and does not adversely affect graft function. R-LDN may be advocated to allow donors to benefit from the advantages of laparoscopic surgery.

Development of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a strategy to increase living kidney donation incentive and maintain equivalent donor/recipient outcome

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) has emerged as the preferred technique worldwide, and has contributed to a dramatic increase in living kidney donation during the past decade. We adopted LDN in 2002 with the intention of increasing living kidney donation incentive and maintaining equivalent donor/recipient outcome.

METHODS

Forty-five LDNs were performed between September 2002 and November 2007. Donor demographics, operative characteristics, perioperative complications and donor/recipient outcome were reviewed retrospectively. The LDN series was divided into earlier and later groups for comparison. To confirm the safety and efficacy of LDN, we compared the results with those of previous series and our open donor nephrectomy (ODN) series.

RESULTS

All 45 LDN kidneys were procured and transplanted successfully. Mean donor operation time was 327.7+/-10.2 minutes, blood loss was 286.0+/-48.3 mL, and warm ischemia time was 233.9+/-19.6 seconds. Two (4.4%) open conversions happened in the earlier group. There was a significant decrease in warm ischemia time and donor intraoperative complications in the later group. There was no donor mortality and there were no repeat surgical procedures. Delayed graft function occurred in 8.9% of cases and three (6.7%) recipients developed ureteral complications. All but one recipient was discharged with adequate renal function. Graft function continued in 41 of the 43 harvested kidneys (95.3%). Compared with ODN, there was a significant decrease in donor postoperative stay in the LDN series (p=0.00). There was no difference between the series with regard to donor safety, donor outcome, and immediate and long-term recipient outcome.

CONCLUSION

The number of living kidney donations increased significantly after adopting LDN in our series. The equivalent donor/recipient outcome of the LDN series compared with that of previous and ODN series was achieved with increasing experience.

[Experience initial right side laparoscopic live donor]

Live donor nephrectomy laparoscopic technique is now standard. However, the right side is controversial because of the short length of the renal vein and the incidence of venous thrombosis.

METHODS

A prospective study of patients live donors since May 2006 to September 2008 in which right nephrectomy was performed by laparoscopic live donor. The placement of trocares was usual and the transperitoneal approach. Incision was used for the extraction of Gibson.

RESULTS

Of the 10 selected patients, 1 was excluded due to conversion to open technique. The criteria for lateralization were sex, renal volume and complex vascular anatomy. 6 patients had made back-table reconstruction surgery with prosthetic vascular due to the length of the renal vein. The average operative time was 158.3 minutes and the bleeding averaged 272 cc. Warm ischemia time averaged 3.2 minutes. The average hospital stay was 1.6 days. 1 recipient presenting delayed graft dysfunction.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic live donor right nephrectomy offers an excellent quality of graft, being a technique feasible and safe, maintaining the principle of leaving the best kidney donor.

Living Donor Nephrectomy: Open versus Laparoscopic Technique

Background

The living donor nephrectomy has to be safe and effective, allowing a good graft function in the recipient. In the past, donor nephrectomy was performed only by open technique; more recently this nephrectomy has also been performed by laparoscopic technique. The best technique has not been established in literature. The purpose of this study is to report the results of open and laparoscopic nephrectomy in living donors.

Materials and Methods

From January 1992 to August 2008, 37 living donor nephrectomies were performed. 23 nephrectomies were achieved by laparoscopic procedure (LDN) and 14 by open technique (ODN). The 2 groups were comparable regarding both donor and recipient characteristics.

Results

All laparoscopic nephrectomies were successfully performed without conversion to open procedure. No donor deaths were reported in either groups. 3 complications (13%) in the LDN group and 1 (7.1%) in the ODN group (p=0.6) were observed. Mean operative time was higher in the LDN group (p<0.036). Mean warm and cold ischemia time, resumption of oral intake and hospital stay were shorter in the LDN group (p<0.04)(p<0.03) (p<0.0001), whereas the return to normal occupational life was similar (p<0.52). We had no significant differences in the surgical complication rates, graft and patient survival.

Conclusions

Our experience suggests that both procedures can be used safely and efficiently, and assure a good renal function in the recipient. Laparoscopic nephrectomy, although more difficult, provides post-operative advantages. However, laparoscopic procedure must be performed by experienced centres only to prevent serious complications in the donor.

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

Since it first was performed in 1995, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) has grown to be the standard of care in most transplant centers in the United States. This article reviews the current indications, selection criteria, surgical approaches, outcomes, and complications of LDN.

Enhanced surgical imaging: laparoscopic vessel identification and assessment of tissue oxygenation

BACKGROUND

Inherent to minimally invasive procedures are loss of tactile feedback and loss of three-dimensional assessment. Tasks such as vessel identification and dissection are not trivial for the inexperienced laparoscopic surgeon. Advanced surgical imaging, such as 3-charge-coupled device (3-CCD) image enhancement, can be used to assist with these more challenging tasks and, in addition, offers a method to noninvasively monitor tissue oxygenation during operations.

STUDY DESIGN

In this study, 3-CCD image enhancement is used for identification of vessels in 25 laparoscopic donor and partial nephrectomy patients. The algorithm is then applied to two laparoscopic nephrectomy patients involving multiple renal arteries. We also use the 3-CCD camera to qualitatively monitor renal parenchymal oxygenation during 10 laparoscopic donor nephrectomies (LDNs).

RESULTS

The mean region of interest (ROI) intensity values obtained for the renal artery and vein (68.40 +/- 8.44 and 45.96 +/- 8.65, respectively) are used to calculate a threshold intensity value (59.00) that allows for objective vessel differentiation. In addition, we examined the renal parenchyma during LDNs. Mean ROI intensity values were calculated for the renal parenchyma at two distinct time points: before vessel stapling (nonischemic) and just before extraction from the abdomen (ischemic). The nonischemic mean ROI intensity values are statistically different from the ischemic mean ROI intensity values (p < 0.05), even with short ischemia times.

CONCLUSIONS

We have developed a technique, 3-CCD image enhancement, for identification of vasculature and monitoring of parenchymal oxygenation. This technique requires no additional laparoscopic operating room equipment and has real-time video capability.

Left or right kidney in hand-assisted donor nephrectomy? A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

There is an ongoing discussion in living renal transplantation whether the right or the left donor nephrectomy is to be preferred if both kidneys are equal, due to the lack of prospective studies.

METHODS

A prospective single-center randomized trial was conducted from April 2002 to September 2006, in which 60 eligible consecutive donors were randomized to either left-sided or right-sided hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN). Primary endpoint was operation time. Secondary endpoints were donor morbidity, warm ischemia time, delayed graft function, urological complications, quality of life, and graft survival.

RESULTS

Median operating time for left-sided HALDN (180 min) was significantly longer compared with right-sided HALDN (150 min; P=0.021). There were no conversions in both groups. There were no major intra- or postoperative complications. One-year graft survival rate was 96% in the left group versus 93% in the right group (P=0.625, log rank).

CONCLUSIONS

Operating time of HALDN of the right kidney is significantly shorter than HALDN of the left kidney. No differences were detected in complication rates and graft survival between left and right-sided donor nephrectomy.

Assessment of live kidney donors by magnetic resonance angiography: reliability and impact on outcomes

BACKGROUND

Kidney allograft retrieval from live donors requires accurate determination of kidney anatomy prior to surgery, particularly the arterial supply. Traditionally, conventional angiography has been used to obtain this information. Magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) offers a non-invasive, cost-effective alternative, but has been considered to be less accurate. Despite this criticism, many centers have moved to MRA screening of potential kidney donors. The objective of this study is to evaluate our experience of the reliability of MRA in determining the arterial anatomy of living kidney donors as compared to the intra-operative findings.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of gadolinium-enhanced, ultra-fast, three-dimensional, spoiled gradient-echo MRA in live kidney donors in the Southern Alberta Transplant Program and compared these results with the intra-operative findings during nephrectomy, as the gold standard.

RESULTS

Of the 66 patients, an accessory renal artery was found intra-operatively in eight cases; two of which were erroneously diagnosed as normal by MRA. The negative predictive value for MRA was 0.97, false-negative rate was 0.25, and sensitivity was 0.75. No patient experienced side-effects from the MRA procedure. No donor needed conversion to open nephrectomy because of an undetected accessory renal artery. One allograft with an accessory renal artery developed thrombosis of the lower pole of the kidney despite arterial reconstruction. Kidney function in the recipient of this allograft was excellent and there was no urinary leak.

CONCLUSION

In our hands, MRA determined the vascular anatomy of potential kidney donors with an acceptable negative predictive value of 97%.

Retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy for retroaortic renal vein draining into left common iliac vein

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) for both retroaortic and circumaortic veins is described. LDN for left retroaortic vein draining into the common iliac vein (CIV) is not described previously. We report 2 cases of laparoscopic harvesting of left kidney having retroaortic renal vein draining into the left CIV and successful transplantation.

Open versus laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: a focus on the safety of donors and the need for a donor registry

PURPOSE

A review of the existing literature showed that the subject of live donor nephrectomy is a seat of underreporting and underestimation of complications. We provide a systematic comparison between laparoscopic and open live donor nephrectomy with special emphasis on the safety of donors and grafts.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The PubMed literature database was searched from inception to October 2006. A comparison was made between laparoscopic and open live donor nephrectomy regarding donor safety and graft efficacy.

RESULTS

The review included 69 studies. There were 7 randomized controlled trials, 5 prospective nonrandomized studies, 22 retrospective controlled studies, 26 large (greater than 100 donors), retrospective, noncontrolled studies, 8 case reports and 1 experimental study. Most investigators concluded that, compared to open live donor nephrectomy, laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy provides equal graft function, an equal rejection rate, equal urological complications, and equal patient and graft survival. Analgesic requirements, pain data, hospital stay and time to return to work are significantly in favor of the laparoscopic procedure. On the other hand, laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy has the disadvantages of increased operative time, increased warm ischemia time and increased major complications requiring reoperation. In terms of donor safety at least 8 perioperative deaths were recorded after laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. These perioperative deaths were not documented in recent review articles. Ten perioperative deaths were reported with open live donor nephrectomy by 1991. No perioperative mortalities have been recorded following open live donor nephrectomy since 1991. Regarding graft safety, at least 15 graft losses directly related to the surgical technique of laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy were found but none was emphasized in recent review articles. The incidence of graft loss due to technical reasons in the early reports of open live donor nephrectomy was not properly documented in the literature.

CONCLUSIONS

We are in need of a live organ donor registry to determine the combined experience of complications and long-term outcomes, rather than short-term reports from single institutions. Like all other new techniques, laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy should be developed and improved at a few centers of excellence to avoid the loss of a donor or a graft.

Right laparoscopic donor nephrectomy and the use of inverted kidney transplantation: an alternative technique

OBJECTIVES

To report a novel approach to overcome the problems associated with a short right renal vein harvested by clipping the vein during right laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (RLDN).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This prospective study included 32 donors and their recipients; all donors had transperitoneal RLDN. The right renal artery and vein were ligated by Hem-o-lok and titanium clips, which resulted in a very short renal vein (<1.5 cm). When the kidney was positioned inverted in the recipient, the renal vein was placed posteriorly, adjacent to the external iliac vein, making a safe and simple venous anastomosis possible.

RESULTS

All RLDN were completed with no conversion or re-operation. The mean (range) warm ischaemia time was 9.59 (3-17) min and there was no malfunction of the vascular clips on the major vessels. After a mean follow-up of 14 months the recipient survival rate was 97%. Graft function was excellent, with a mean (sd) serum creatinine level of 1.35 (0.31) mg/dL at 3 months after surgery, and there was no renal artery or vein thrombosis in any of the grafts. There were two ureteric complications (6%), i.e. one ureterocutaneous fistula resolved by secondary ureteroureterostomy, and one stricture at the site of ureteric anastomosis, which was managed by ureteroneocystostomy.

CONCLUSION

The right renal vein obtained by LDN, after clipping the renal vein, is quite short, but by placing the kidney upside-down in the right iliac fossa transplantation is possible with no increased incidence of vascular thrombosis. This simple modification might obviate the need for removing a patch from the inferior vena cava, which is a challenging procedure for laparoscopic surgeons during RLDN.