Maximizing the donor pool: use of right kidneys and kidneys with multiple arteries for live donor transplantation

Right and left living donor nephrectomy and operative approach: A systematic review and meta-analysis of donor and recipient outcomes

INTRODUCTION

The left kidney is preferable in living donor nephrectomy (LDN). We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of right versus left LDN in both donor and recipients. A subgroup analysis of outcomes based on operative approach was also performed.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed as per PRISMA guidelines. Outcomes of interest were extracted from included studies and analysed.

RESULTS

There were 31 studies included with 79,912 transplants. Left LDN was performed in 84.1 % of cases and right LDN in 15.9 %. Right LDN was associated with reduced EBL (P = 0.010), intra-operative complications (P = 0.030) and operative time (P = 0.006), but higher rates of conversion to open surgery (1.4 % vs 0.9 %). However, right living donor renal transplantation (LDRT) had higher rates of delayed graft function (5.4 % vs 4.2 %, P < 0.0001) and graft loss (2.6 % vs 1.1 %, P < 0.0001). Graft survival was reduced in right LDRT at 3 years (92.0 % vs 94.2 %, P = 0.001) but comparable to left LDRT at 1- and 5-years. Otherwise, donor and recipient peri-operative outcomes and serum creatinine levels were comparable in both groups. Hand-assisted LDN was associated with shorter warm ischaemia time (P < 0.0001) but longer length of stay (LOS) than laparoscopic LDN and robotic-assisted LDN (P < 0.0001). RA-LDN was associated with less EBL and shorter LOS (both P < 0.0001) while patients who underwent L-LDN had a lower mean serum creatinine (SCr) level on discharge (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Right LDRT has higher rates of delayed graft function and graft loss compared to left LDRT. Minimally-invasive surgical approaches potentially offer improved outcomes but further large-scale randomised controlled trials studies are required to confirm this finding.

Single versus multiple renal arteries in living donor kidney transplantation: A systematic review and patient-level meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Grafts with multiple renal arteries (MRAs) were historically considered a relative contraindication to transplantation due to the higher risk of vascular and urologic complications. This study aimed to evaluate graft and patient survival between single renal artery (SRA) and MRA living-donor kidney transplants.

METHODS

An electronic literature search was conducted on PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus for prospective or retrospective studies comparing SRA versus MRA in living donor renal transplantation, with the provision of Kaplan-Meier curves for recipient overall survival (OS) or graft survival (GS). A graphical reconstructive algorithm was used to obtain OS and GS of individual patients, which was then pooled under random-effects individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis using Cox-models to determine hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Meta-regression of baseline covariates versus HRs of OS and GS was performed for variables reported in 10 or more studies.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were retrieved, of which 13 (8400 patients) reported OS and 9 (6912 patients) reported GS. There were no significant differences in OS (shared-frailty HR = .94, 95%CI = .85-1.03, p = .172) or GS (shared-frailty HR = .95, 95%CI = .83-1.08, p = .419) between SRA and MRA. This comparison remained non-significant even when restricted to open- or laparoscopic-only studies. Meta-regression yielded no significant associations of GS with donor age, recipient age, and percentage of double renal arteries within the MRA arm.

CONCLUSIONS

The similar rates of GS and OS between MRA and SRA grafts suggest that there is no need for discrimination between the two when evaluating donors for nephrectomy.

The effect of single or multiple arteries in the donor kidney on renal transplant surgical outcomes

BACKGROUND

As the number of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients is increasing, but there are not enough living donors, it is necessary to broaden the criteria for candidates who can undergo donor nephrectomy. Thanks to surgeons' increasing experience with laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LND), multiple renal artery grafts, previously considered a relative contraindication to donor nephrectomy, have become candidates for LDN. We aimed to compare the outcomes of donors and recipients with single artery and with multiple arteries in LDN.

METHODS

A total of 214 patients were included in the study. Patients were divided into two groups according to the number of donor arteries: donors with one artery (group 1) and donors with multiple arteries (group 2). The number of donor arteries, operative time, warm ischemia time (WIT), cold ischemia time (CIT), arterial anastomosis time, venous anastomosis time, the extent of bleeding, and preoperative complications were recorded to evaluate the preoperative data.

RESULTS

The mean operation time in group 1 was 90.3 ± 11.8 min, while in group 2, it was 102.1 ± 5.5 min (p = 0.000). WIT group 1 was 90.9 ± 4.3 s and group 2 100.6 ± 2.1 s (p = 0.000). Arterial anastomosis time was 12.25 ± 3.8 in group 1 and 22.5 ± 4.5 in group 2 (p = 0.000). No statistically significant difference was found between the two groups in other parameters.

CONLUSION

Increasing the number of donor arteries in renal transplantation (RT) operations prolonged the operation time on both the donor and recipient sides. Still, it had no negative impact on complications or graft function in the postoperative period.

Long-term outcomes of left versus right laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy with multiple renal arteries

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study is to compare the long-term graft outcomes of left versus right donor nephrectomy with multiple renal arteries, and therefore creating a reference for the expansion of the potential living kidney donor pool.

METHODS

Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy cases between May 2010 and October 2020 were included in this retrospective cross-sectional study. The data relating to donor and recipient demographics, surgical and anatomical characteristics, recipient and graft status were retrieved and compared using nonparametric statistical methods and multivariate regression. Analyses were fit for survival factors.

RESULTS

A total of 1009 recipients were included in this retrospective cross-sectional study with their donors. 16.7% of the donors had been discovered to have more than one renal artery supplying the donated kidney. The acute rejection rate was 12.8%. Death-censored graft survival at post-operative year 5 for single renal artery transplants was 89.6%, 89.5% for left-sided multiple renal arteries, and 88.2% for right-sided ones.

CONCLUSIONS

Both right donor nephrectomy and left donor nephrectomy are safe procedures with no significant negatively impacted rates for neither survival nor complications of the recipients in the long-term, compared to single renal artery ones.

Laterality in laparoscopic hand assisted donor nephrectomy - Does it matter anymore? Outcomes of a large retrospective series

This retrospective study was performed to analyse if laterality of the retrieved living donor kidney had any effect on donor and recipient outcomes after hand assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN). 739 donors who underwent HALDN between January 2006 and January 2018 at a large tertiary transplant centre in the United Kingdom were included. Donor outcomes in individuals undergoing right versus left HALDN were compared with respect to conversion rates, morbidity, warm and cold ischaemia times and recipient failure rates, vascular and ureteric complications. 604 (81.7%) underwent left HALDN and 135 (18.3%) underwent right HALDN, mean age was 47.1 years and 46.8 years respectively with comparable gender distribution. The operative time was shorter for the left side (p = 0.003) and improved during the study for the left but not the right side. In recipients who received left kidneys there were more early technical failures observed (8 versus 1) though not statistically significant. Most centres prefer performing a left nephrectomy and recipient surgeons prefer a left kidney for transplantation primarily because of having a longer vein. This large study provides reassurance that right HALDN nephrectomy is a safe procedure with similar outcomes to left HALDN.

Does the Side Matter? A Retrospective Cohort Study Comparing Left and Right Pure Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomies

OBJECTIVES

Right laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (RLDN) is no longer regarded inferior to left LDN (LLDN). However, this knowledge is based on many studies suffering from inherent learning curves, center-specific imbalances, and different laparoscopic techniques.

METHODS

Pure LDNs at a high-volume referral center from 2011 to 2016 were retrospectively analyzed. Patient, graft characteristics, outcomes of LDNs, and corresponding open kidney transplantations were compared between LLDN and RLDN including a follow-up.

RESULTS

160 (78.4%) LLDNs and 44 (21.6%) RLDNs only differed regarding graft characteristics, as more right grafts had multiple veins (34.1 vs. 6.9%, p < 0.001) and worse scintigraphic function (44 vs. 51%, p < 0.001). RLDNs were shorter (201 vs. 220 min, p = 0.032) with longer warm ischemia time (165 vs. 140 s, p < 0.001), but left grafts were transplanted faster (160 vs. 171 min, p = 0.048). Recipients of right kidneys had more postoperative complications (grade 3: 25.6 vs. 11.3%, p = 0.020). At a follow-up of 45 (range 6-79) months, neither the kidney function, nor death-censored graft (5-year: LLDN 89 vs. 92%, p = 0.969) and patient survival (5-year: LLDN 95 vs. 98%, p = 0.747) differed.

CONCLUSIONS

Pure LLDN and RLDN can have different outcomes at high-volume centers, especially higher complications for recipients of right grafts. However, long-term function and graft survival are the same irrespective of the chosen side.

Procedure: Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy

Minimally invasive approaches for laparoscopic donor nephrectomy are necessary to limit surgical morbidity, and technical challenges differ from those encountered during other laparoscopic renal surgeries. Presented here is a step-by-step guide for laparoscopic donor nephrectomy-focusing on pure laparoscopic and hand-assisted techniques. Both straight laparoscopic and hand-assisted nephrectomies were performed in healthy donors who met transplantation criteria in terms of global health and psychologic well-being. Patient positioning, trocar placement, surgical steps, incision closure, and postoperative care are reviewed. Standard equipment used to complete this procedure is itemized. This guide outlines indications, preoperative preparation, and procedural steps for laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. The techniques and the evolution thereof represent our experience since 2002 for 510 cases. The attached videos demonstrate a high-volume surgeon's typical approach while factoring in anatomical variation. In both cases, the donor nephrectomies were without incident and the patient's postoperative courses were without complication. A basic framework for donor nephrectomy is presented highlighting surgical steps we believe to be essential for graft preservation and ultimately effective transplantation. Although no two cases are the same, systematic approaches will allow for timely case completion, fewer complications, and better donor/recipient outcomes.

Comparing outcomes in right versus left kidney transplantation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Transplantation of right kidneys can pose technical challenges due to the short right renal vein. Whether this results in inferior outcomes remains controversial.

METHOD

Healthcare Database Advanced Search (HDAS) was used to identify relevant studies. Two authors independently reviewed each study. Statistical analyses were performed using random effects models and results expressed as HR or relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals. Subgroup analyses were performed in kidneys from deceased donors (DD) and living donors (LD).

RESULTS

A total of 35 studies (257,429 participants) were identified. Both deceased and living donor right kidneys were at increased risk of delayed graft function (DGF; RR = 1.12[1.06-1.18] and RR = 1.33[1.21-1.46] respectively; both p < .0001). In absolute terms, for each 100 kidney pairs of DD kidneys transplanted there are 2.72 (1.67-3.78, p < .00001) excess episodes of DGF in right kidneys. Graft thromboses and graft loss due to technical failure was also significantly more likely in right kidneys, in both DD and LD settings. There was no evidence that laterality alters long term graft survival in LD or DD.

CONCLUSION

Right kidneys have inferior early outcomes, with higher rates of DGF, technical failure and graft thrombosis. However, these differences are small in absolute terms, and long-term graft survival is equivalent.

The Impact of Living Donor Nephrectomy With Multiple Renal Arteries on Graft Function and Complications in Renal Transplantation

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to investigate the early outcome of living donor kidney transplantation using allografts with a single artery and multiple arteries.

METHODS

From February 2018 to December 2019, a total of 62 patients underwent living donor nephrectomy at our institution: 20 multiple artery donor nephrectomies (MADNs) and 42 single artery donor nephrectomies (SADNs). All operations were performed by the same surgeon as the laparoscopic procedure. The MADN and SADN groups were compared regarding donor and recipient hospital stay, operative time, warm ischemia time, and postoperative complications with Clavien-Dindo classification. Graft function was evaluated considering episodes of acute tubular necrosis during the first week, delayed graft function, serum creatinine (SCr), and glomerular filtration rate for 6 months after transplantation.

RESULTS

Sixty-two patients were included in this study. There was no difference in terms of age, sex, body mass index, nephrectomy side, smoking status, preoperative SCr, or preoperative glomerular filtration rate between the 2 groups. Warm ischemia time and operation time were statistically significantly higher in the MADN group (P < .001 and P < .001). Regarding graft function, the prevalence of acute tubular necrosis did not differ between groups. There was also no significant difference in the acute rejection or mortality rates after transplantation. Although SCr levels were lower in multiple renal artery recipients, there was no statistical difference during the 6 months of follow-up. Recipient morbidity and mortality were not different between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Renal allograft transplantation with multiple renal arteries can be performed with reasonable complications and acceptable results.

Sequential analysis of single-center experience of living donor kidney transplants with several vascular anastomosis techniques

Background and aim

Vascular variations of grafts are handled with various reconstruction techniques in renal transplantation. We aimed to analyze the effects of these reconstruction techniques and sites on patient/graft outcomes.

Materials and methods

Renal transplantation cases at the Transplantation Unit of the General Surgery Department, İstanbul Uni- versity Cerrahpaşa Medical Faculty between January 1st, 2000 and December 31st, 2012 were analyzed retrospectively. Postoperative duplex ultrasound results, urea-creatinine reduction rates, and complications were evaluated.

Results

There were 228 living-donor transplantation cases evaluated. For single-renal-artery living-donor transplantations, there were 45 end-to-side external iliac artery, 15 end-to-side internal iliac artery, 152 end-to-end internal iliac artery, and 3 end-to-side common iliac artery anastomoses performed. In cases with double-arteries, 3 had end-to-side external iliac artery anastomoses, and 10 had end- to-end internal iliac artery anastomoses. No statistically significant differences were found between reconstruction techniques with regard to complications or urea-creatinine reduction rates.

Conclusion

Internal, external, and common iliac arteries can be safely used for anastomoses. The presence of more than one renal artery creates no short or long-term problems when a side-to-side anastomosis is initially performed.

Physical activity in elderly kidney transplant patients with multiple renal arteries

INTRODUCTION

Kidney transplantation (KT) is the gold standard for treatment of patients with end- stage-renal disease. To expand the donor reserve, it is necessary to use marginal/suboptimal kidneys.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated the short/long-term outcome of 34 KT elderly patients who received allografts with vascular abnormalities (MRA group), in comparison with 34 KT patients who received a kidney with a single renal artery (SRA group) pair-matched by age, length of time on dialysis, comorbidity and donor age.

RESULTS

All participants completed the International Physical Activity Questionnaire at KT, and then 4, 8, and 12 weeks after transplantation. Our data indicate that kidney with vascular anatomical variants may be successfully transplanted, since the overall rate of surgical complications was 20.6% in the SRA group and 17.6% in the MRA group and that the 5-year survival rate after KT was 100% in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The data also underline that individualized physical activity programs induced similar excellent results in both groups, improving physical capacities, arterial pressure, lipid metabolism, insulin sensitivity, quality of life and physical and mental status.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in kidneys with multiple renal arteries versus a single renal artery: An analysis of vascular complications from 1,350 cases

OBJECTIVE

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) has been shown to be a safe approach with better morbidity results. Impact of multiple renal arteries (MRAs) and anatomical variations has been reviewed by many authors. In our study, the relationship between the donors with MRAs and risk of perioperative vascular complications related to donor nephrectomy was investigated.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Patients who underwent hand-assisted LDNs between January 2007 and February 2018 were reviewed retrospectively. Patient age, sex, body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, side of donor nephrectomies, donors with MRAs, intraoperative vascular complications, conversion rates, hospitalization durations, and operative times were extracted. Risk factors for perioperative vascular complications were defined.

RESULTS

There were MRAs in 288 kidney donors (21.3%). The number of patients who underwent a right donor nephrectomy was 113 (8.4%). BMI, waist circumference, and postoperative hospital stay were not significantly different between donors with one artery and those with MRAs (p>0.05). The renovascular complication rate and overall conversion rate to open surgery were significantly higher in donors with MRAs (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Perioperative safety of the kidney donors is of crucial importance. Surgeons performing LDNs must be aware of the potential risks. Our analysis suggests that procurement of kidneys from donors with MRAs is a risk factor for renovascular complications.

Feasibility and safety of laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy in case of right kidney and multiple-renal artery kidney: a systematic review of the literature

PURPOSE

To access the current status of the security and feasibility of right kidney (RK) and multiple-renal artery (MRA) laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy (LLDN) which are more challenging compared to left kidney (LK) and single renal artery (SRA) because of a shorter renal vein and more complex vascular anatomy.

METHODS

We did a systematic review of the literature according to the PRISMA recommendations, reporting RK or MRA donor nephrectomy performed with a laparoscopic technique compared to LK or SRA kidney LLDN. The identified and analyzed primary outcomes of interest were operating time (OT), warm ischemia time (WIT), rate of conversion and transfusion, donor length of stay (LOS), delayed graft function (DGF) and rate of graft loss (GL).

RESULTS

16 comparative studies (1397 cases) of RK-LLDN and 12 comparative studies including 15 series (993 cases) of MRA-LLDN were selected. For RK-LLDN review, conversion rate was 0.8% and blood transfusion rate 0.2%, only one case of graft venous thrombosis was reported, OT was shorter in four studies and there was no any difference of DGF and GL rate compared to LK-LLDN. For MRA-LLDN review, conversion rate was 1.3% and blood transfusion rate 1.1%, OT and WIT were longer compared to SRA-LLDN, there were more ureteral complications in two studies, and no difference in terms of vascular complications and graft loss rate.

CONCLUSION

RK-LLDN and MRA-LLDN would be similar to LK-LLDN and SRA-LLDN in terms of feasibility and safety for the donor as well as graft function results for RK-LLDN.

Which One Is the Best for Living Donation: A Multiple-Artery Left Kidney Nephrectomy or a Right Kidney Nephrectomy?

INTRODUCTION

The current approach in living-donor kidney transplant is to preserve the best kidney for the donor and harvest the contralateral one. Due to a shorter renal vein and a greater incidence of venous thrombosis, left kidneys are more frequently elected. Notwithstanding, arterial anatomy may be complex and thus render the transplantation procedure more difficult and prone to complications.

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the outcomes after multiple-artery left kidney nephrectomy (MALKN) and right kidney nephrectomy (RKN).

RESULTS

Seventy-three cases were performed from 1999 to 2017 in our institution: 34 MALKN and 39 RKN. The mean operative time was significantly longer in MALKN. Warm ischemia time, donor and receptor hospital stay, and postoperative complications did not differ between groups. There was a positive correlation between renal arteries' ostia distance in MALKN and the duration of warm ischemia period. There was no significant difference in the incidence of acute tubular necrosis, first-year variations in serum creatinine, and glomerular filtration rate between groups. Long-term graft survival did not significantly differ between groups. Three cases of vein thrombosis after RKN were reported with graft loss.

CONCLUSION

The safety and efficacy of MALKN does not differ from RKN, although there appears to be a higher incidence of vein thrombosis after right kidney transplantation. Despite being technically more demanding, particularly in cases with distant artery ostia, MALKN could be a better option than RKN for living donation, expanding the available donor pool, although more studies are needed to affirm this conclusion.

Open Management of the Renal Vein Is a Safe Modification in Right-Sided Laparoscopic Living Donor Nephrectomy to Maximize Graft Vein Length

BACKGROUND

The primary objective in living donor kidney transplantation is donor safety. In laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy, most centers prefer the left kidney for donation given the shorter renal vein, higher rate of thromboses, and more difficult surgical procedure for right kidney retrieval. The goal of this study was to demonstrate the feasibility of a hybrid technique using a Satinsky clamp in right-sided living donor nephrectomy to obtain maximal renal vein and to compare the outcome with standard left-sided laparoscopic donor nephrectomies.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Between 2005 and 2013, 77 patients underwent a left (group L) and 54 a right (group R) living donor nephrectomy. In group R, after laparoscopic dissection and mobilization of the right kidney, two 12-mm trocar incisions in the right upper quadrant were connected in a 5-7 cm subcostal incision. The caval vein was partially clamped under direct vision prior to dissection of the renal vein. The venotomy was then closed with a running 4-0 Prolene suture. The two groups were compared with regard to surgical complications, graft function, and graft survival.

RESULTS

Using this technique, no significant difference with regard to complications or graft function was observed. Serum creatinine at discharge in donor group L was 1.23 (±0.43) mg/dL and in donor group R 1.21 (±0.37) mg/dL (P = .71). Graft survival at one year was 100% in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Open management of the renal vein is a safe alternative in laparoscopic right-sided donor nephrectomy and ensures maximal length of the vein.

Laparoscopic vs open donor nephrectomy: Lessons learnt from single academic center experience

AIM

To compare laparoscopic and open living donor nephrectomy, based on the results from a single center during a decade.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of all living donor nephrectomies performed at the Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, between 1/1998 - 12/2009. Overall there were 490 living donors, with 279 undergoing laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy (LLDN) and 211 undergoing open donor nephrectomy (OLDN). Demographic data, operating room time, the effect of the learning curve, the number of conversions from laparoscopic to open surgery, donor preoperative glomerular filtration rate and creatinine (Cr), donor and recipient postoperative Cr, delayed graft function and donor complications were analyzed. Statistical analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Overall there was no statistically significant difference between the LLDN and the OLDN groups regarding operating time, donor preoperative renal function, donor and recipient postoperative kidney function, delayed graft function or the incidence of major complications. When the last 100 laparoscopic cases were analyzed, there was a statistically significant difference regarding operating time in favor of the LLDN, pointing out the importance of the learning curve. Furthermore, another significant difference between the two groups was the decreased length of stay for the LLDN (2.87 d for LLDN vs 3.6 d for OLDN).

CONCLUSION

Recognizing the importance of the learning curve, this paper provides evidence that LLDN has a safety profile comparable to OLDN and decreased length of stay for the donor.

Vascular Multiplicity Should Not Be a Contra-Indication for Live Kidney Donation and Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Whether vascular multiplicity should be considered as contraindication and therefore 'extended donor criterion' is still under debate.

METHODS

Data from all live kidney donors from 2006-2013 (n = 951) was retrospectively reviewed. Vascular anatomy as imaged by MRA, CTA or other modalities was compared with intraoperative findings. Furthermore, the influence of vascular multiplicity on outcome of donors and recipients was studied.

RESULTS

In 237 out of 951 donors (25%), vascular multiplicity was present. CTA had the highest accuracy levels regarding vascular anatomy assessment. Regarding outcome of donors with vascular multiplicity, warm ischemia time (WIT) and skin-to-skin time were significantly longer if arterial multiplicity (AM) was present (5.1 vs. 4.0 mins and 202 vs. 178 mins). Skin-to-skin time was significantly longer, and complication rates were higher in donors with venous multiplicity (203 vs. 180 mins and 17.2% vs. 8.4%). Outcome of renal transplant recipients showed a significantly increased WIT (30 vs. 26.7 minutes), higher rate of DGF (13.9% vs. 6.9%) and lower rate of BPAR (6.9% vs. 13.9%) in patients receiving a kidney with AM compared to kidneys with singular anatomy.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that vascular multiplicity should not be a contra-indication, since it has little impact on clinical outcome in the donor as well as in renal transplant recipients.

Shifting paradigms in eligibility criteria for live kidney donation: a systematic review

As the organ shortage increases, inherently the demand for donor kidneys continues to rise. Thus, live kidney donation is essential for increasing the donor pool. In order to create successful expansion, extended criteria live kidney donors should be considered. This review combines current guidelines with all available literature in this field, trying to seek and establish the optimal extended criteria. Comprehensive searches were carried out in major databases until November 2013 to search for articles regarding older age, overweight and obesity, hypertension, vascular anomalies/multiplicity, nulliparous women, and minors as donors. Of the 2079 articles found, 152 fell within the scope of the review. Five major guidelines were included and reviewed. Based on the literature search, live kidney donation in older donors (up to 70 years of age) seems to be safe as outcome is comparable to younger donors. Obese donors have comparable outcome to lean donors, in short- and mid-term follow-up. Since little literature is available proving the safety of donation of hypertensive donors, caution is advised. Vascular multiplicity poses no direct danger to the donor and women of childbearing age can be safely included as donors. Although outcome after donation in minors is shown to be comparable to adult donors, they should only be considered if no other options exist. We conclude that the analyzed factors above should not be considered as absolute contraindications for donation.

Role of MDCT angiography in selection and presurgical planning of potential renal donors

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence and types of renal and extrarenal abnormalities that preclude renal donation or lead to alteration of the surgical approach on the basis of abdominal CT angiography (CTA) in a large group of potential renal donors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this retrospective study, 654 potential renal donors undergoing dual-phase CTA were identified from January 2005 to January 2009. The CT reports were systemically reviewed by two radiologists to determine the presence of renal and extrarenal abnormalities. The operative notes of the renal donors were reviewed by one radiologist to determine whether the presence of renal pathology had affected the surgical approach. In the candidates who did not proceed to kidney donation, the reasons that precluded kidney donation were abstracted from the transplant database.

RESULTS

Four hundred seventeen potential donors (269 men and 385 women; mean age, 44.0 years; age range, 17-79 years) proceeded to renal donation and 237 did not. The most common renal abnormalities were cysts (34%) and renal stones (4.4%). Renal artery disease was identified in 3.4% of potential donors, including renal artery stenosis, possible fibromuscular dysplasia, and renal artery aneurysm. Suspicious renal masses were incidentally found in 0.5% of potential donors. The most common extrarenal pathology was an incidental adrenal nodule (2.6%). Other significant extrarenal pathology identified included gallbladder mass (0.2%), Crohn disease (0.2%), ovarian mass (0.2%), and possible sarcoidosis (0.2%). Although renal and extrarenal abnormalities were present in 41% of potential renal donors, abnormalities seen on CT only contributed to exclusion of 27 potential donors (4.1%). The most common reason for exclusion was the presence of renal stones or scarring (1.8%). Significant CT findings also contributed to the selection of the right kidney in 29 donors, most commonly due to presence of ipsilateral vascular disease or complex left vascular anatomy.

CONCLUSION

Renal parenchymal and vascular abnormalities are common in asymptomatic potential kidney donors. Although most of these represent incidental CT findings, abnormalities can exclude potential renal donors and alter the surgical approach in a small minority of cases.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic right donor nephrectomy: safety and feasibility

Purpose

We aimed to prove the safety and feasibility of right-sided hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN).

Materials and Methods

Between May 2006 and May 2009, 16 patients underwent right-sided HALDN at our institution. Of these patients, 15 showed significantly lower renal function in the right kidney than in the left one and 1 had a stone in the right kidney. When the right renal vein was divided, an EndoGIA stapling device was placed on the wall of the inferior vena cava to gain a maximal length of the vein. We evaluated intraoperative and postoperative parameters such as operative time, delivery time, warm ischemic time, estimated blood loss, intraoperative and postoperative complication rates, length of hospital stay, and serum creatinine levels of donors (at the time of discharge) and recipients (4 weeks postoperatively), comparing the right-sided HALDN group (our study) with a left-sided HALDN group (from a previously reported study).

Results

A total of 16 right-sided HALDNs were successfully performed without any complications or open conversion. All of the intraoperative and postoperative parameters were similar between the right-sided HALDN and left-sided HALDN groups. There were no technical problems in the recipients in the anastomosis of the renal vein, and the ureteral anastomoses were also successful.

Conclusions

Right-sided HALDN is safe and technically feasible in a donor, showing favorable graft outcomes. The results of our study suggest that right-sided HALDN may be preferable in patients with significantly lower renal function in the right kidney than in the left one.

Donor complications following laparoscopic compared to hand-assisted living donor nephrectomy: an analysis of the literature

There are two approaches to laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) and hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN). In this study we report the operative statistics and donor complications associated with LDN and HALDN from large-center peer-reviewed publications. Methods. We conducted PubMed and Ovid searches to identify LDN and HALDN outcome studies that were published after 2004. Results. There were 37 peer-reviewed studies, each with more than 150 patients. Cumulatively, over 9000 patients were included in this study. LDN donors experienced a higher rate of intraoperative complications than HALDN donors (5.2% versus. 2.0%, P < .001). Investigators did not report a significant difference in the rate of major postoperative complications between the two groups (LDN 0.5% versus HALDN 0.7%, P = .111). However, conversion to open procedures from vascular injury was reported more frequently in LDN procedures (0.8% versus 0.4%, P = .047). Conclusion. At present there is no evidence to support the use of one laparoscopic approach in preference to the other. There are trends in the data suggesting that intraoperative injuries are more common in LDN while minor postoperative complications are more common in HALDN.