Surgical techniques in right laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

Hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy offers more liberal use of right kidneys: lessons learned from 565 cases - a retrospective single-center study

The introduction of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy caused a shift toward' left donor nephrectomy. Some centers report a significantly low rate of endoscopic right donor nephrectomy. Hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy (HARP-DN) was introduced as a novel surgical technique, which aims to avoid intra-abdominal complications. It was also reported to provide technical advantages for right-sided DN. In this retrospective single-center study, we evaluated the impact of HARP-DN technique on utilization of right-sided DNs. After the implementation of HARP-DN on February 2009, a total of 565 DNs were performed until December 2015. The introduction of HARP-DN technique resulted in an immediate increase in the utilization of right kidneys from 6.1% to an average of 19.6% annually. The donors 'outcome was similar to the left-sided and right-sided DN groups, excluding the increased incidence of incisional hernias in left kidney donors. None of the donors developed intra-abdominal complications. In conclusion, the implementation of HARP technique significantly increased the use of right-sided DNs, which enables a more liberal use of donors in LDKT.

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.

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.

Open and laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: activity and outcomes from all Australasian transplant centers

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LapDN) has been widely adopted despite a lack of randomized trials comparing recipient outcomes with open surgery. Review of registry data now seems the most realistic mechanism to compare outcomes. The Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry prospectively captures data on all renal transplants performed in Australia and New Zealand including long-term follow-up of recipients. AIM.: To compare graft outcomes among recipient of kidneys from donors undergoing nephrectomy using open and laparoscopic techniques, through analysis of the Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry after the introduction of laparoscopic donor surgery in Australia and New Zealand in 1997.

METHODS

Operative technique data for live donor transplants were collected from all surgeons performing live kidney donation procedures from May 1997 to December 2003; the outcomes of all live donor transplants were examined with follow-up to December 2007. Donor and recipient demographic variables and graft outcomes were compared between the laparoscopic and the open donor groups.

RESULTS

One thousand four hundred seventy-four live donor transplants were performed in 27 transplant centers. Of these, 315 (21%) were performed laparoscopically in 11 centers. Nineteen laparoscopic cases (6%) were converted to open. Total ischemic time was longer in the LapDN group (3.16 hr) than in the open donor group (1.61 hr, P<0.0001). The LapDN group experienced a lower incidence of rejection episodes (29.2% vs. 38.6%, P=0.002). Delayed graft function and technical failure rates were statistically equal across the groups. There were a total of 242 graft failures (175 graft losses and 67 deaths with a functioning graft, NS). Among surviving grafts, there was no consistent difference in serum creatinine at any time point. Graft and patient survivals were similar in both groups during 10-year follow-up.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that there is no difference in short- or long-term recipient outcomes for open and laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy.

Elective surgical patients as living organ donors: a clinical and ethical innovation

We propose a new model for living organ donation that would invite elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy patients to become volunteer, unrelated living kidney donors. Such donors would be surgical patients first and living donors second, in contrast to the current system, which 'creates' a surgical patient by operating on a healthy individual. Elective surgery patients have accepted the risks of anesthesia and surgery for their own surgical needs but would face additional surgical risks when a donor nephrectomy is combined with their cholecystectomy procedure. Because these two procedures have never been performed together, the precise level of additional risk entailed in such a combined approach is unknown and will require further study. However, considering the large number of elective cholecystectomies performed each year in the United States, if as few as 5% of elective cholecystectomy patients agreed to also serve as living kidney donors, the number of living kidney donors would increase substantially. If this proposal is accepted by a minority of patients and surgeons, and proves safe and effective in a protocol study, it could be applied to other elective abdominal surgery procedures and used to obtain other abdominal donor organs (e.g. liver and intestinal segments) for transplantation.

[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.

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.

[Laparoscopic nephrectomy in a living donor]

Kidney transplantation is the therapeutic option of choice for patients with end-stage renal disease. With the advent of safer harvesting techniques and immunosuppression, both donor and recipient outcomes have markedly improved in recent years. Kidney donation from Living donors remains the single most important factor responsible for improving patient and graft survival. The laparoscopic donor nephrectomy has revolutionized renal transplantation, allowing expansion of the donor pool by diminishing surgical morbidity while maintaining equivalent recipient outcome. This technique is now becoming the gold-standard harvesting procedure in transplant centres worldwide, despite its technical challenge and ongoing procedural maturation, especially early in the learning curve. Previous contraindications to laparoscopic donor nephrectomy are no longer absolute. In the following analysis, the procedural aspects of the laparoscopic donor nephrectomy are detailed including pre-operative assessment, operative technique and a review of the current literature delineating aspects of both donor and recipient morbidity and mortality compared with open harvesting techniques.

Obtaining Cuff of Inferior Vena Cava by Use of the Endo-TA Stapler in Retroperitoneoscopic Right-Side Donor Nephrectomy

OBJECTIVES

To determine the feasibility of obtaining an adequate cuff of the inferior vena cava (IVC) for vascular anastomosis during retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy.

METHODS

Between September 2004 and May 2005, a total 100 retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomies were performed. Fifteen cases were performed on the right side. The Endo-TA stapler was used to obtain the cuff of IVC in all cases of right-side donor nephrectomy.

RESULTS

Mean warm ischemia time was 4.9 minutes (range, 2.96 to 8.0 minutes). Mean length of the cuff of IVC was 4 mm (range, 3 to 6 mm) at the upper end and 6 mm (range, 4 to 8 mm) at the lower end of the vein. All grafts functioned immediately, and there was one graft loss due to vascular rejection.

CONCLUSIONS

Control of the renal vein by use of the Endo-TA stapler during retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy helps in obtaining a good vascular cuff of the IVC.

Single-Surgeon Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy and Renal Transplantation

OBJECTIVES

To demonstrate the feasibility of single-surgeon performance of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy and recipient living renal transplantation.

METHODS

Fifteen consecutive donor-recipient pairs were performed from August 2003 and July 2004 by a single surgeon at one institution. Routine donor and recipient outcome measures were prospectively assessed.

RESULTS

The mean donor height and weight was 66 in. and 151 lb, respectively. All donors underwent left nephrectomy. Renal arteries were paired in 3 (20%) of 15 donors. No donors underwent conversion or transfusion. No donor complications occurred. The mean operating room time, estimated blood loss, and hospital stay was 195 minutes, 200 mL, and 2 days, respectively. The mean recipient height and weight was 65 in. and 158 lb, respectively. The mean recipient age was 46 years (range 21 to 69). Of the 15 recipients, 3 (20%) had previously undergone transplantation. The mean operating room time, blood loss, and hospital stay for the recipients was 155 minutes, 100 mL, and 4.5 days, respectively. No recipient operative complications occurred. All allografts functioned immediately. The median recipient creatinine nadir was 1.1 mg/dL. Of the 15 recipients, 3 (20%) had postoperative complications during follow-up, including reintubation in 1, pneumonia in 1, and acute rejection in 1. The patient and graft survival rate were both 100%, and the mean serum creatinine was 1.16 mg/dL at a mean and median follow-up of 187 and 164 days (range 18 to 350), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

We report the first series evaluating the performance of single-surgeon laparoscopic donor nephrectomy and living renal transplantation. Single-surgeon performance of both laparoscopic donor nephrectomy and living renal transplantation is technically feasible and logistically straightforward. The donor and recipient outcomes are consistent with those reported in published reports.

Hand-assisted right laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy has acquired an important role in the era of minimally invasive surgery. Laparoscopic harvesting of the right kidney is technically more challenging than that of the left kidney because of the short right renal vein and the need to retract the liver away from the right kidney. The aim of this article is to report our experience with right laparoscopic live donor nephrectomies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of 28 patients who underwent right laparoscopic donor nephrectomies at our service. Operative data and postoperative outcomes were collected, including surgical time, estimated blood loss, warm ischemia time, length of hospital stay, conversion to laparotomy and complications.

RESULTS

The procedure was performed successfully in all 28 patients. The mean operative time was 83.8 minutes (range 45 to 180 minutes), with an estimated blood loss of 111.4 mL (range 40 to 350 mL) and warm ischemia time of 3 minutes (range 1.5 to 8 minutes). No donor needed conversion to open surgery and all kidneys showed immediate function after implantation. The average time to initial fluid intake was 12 hours (range 8 to 24 hours). Two cases of postoperative ileus and a case of hematoma on the hand-port site were observed. The mean postoperative hospital stay was 3 days (range 1 to 7 days).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data confirm the safety and feasibility of right laparoscopic donor nephrectomy and we believe that the right kidney should not be avoided for laparoscopic donor nephrectomy when indicated.

Outcome of right hand–assisted retroperitoneoscopic living donor nephrectomy

OBJECTIVES

To compare the results of right and left hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic living donor nephrectomy (HARDN) and assess the usefulness and feasibility of right HARDN.

METHODS

A total of 68 HARDNs performed from July 2001 to February 2005 in Akita University Medical Center were entered into this study. Of these, 12 cases were right-sided HARDN. The reasons for selecting right HARDN were wandering right kidney in 4, multiple left renal arteries in 3, lower glomerular function presenting in the right kidney in 2 patients, and left renal stone, right renal cyst, and right renal aneurysm in 1 patient each. We compared the perioperative and postoperative results of the 12 right-sided HARDNs with those of the 56 left HARDNs.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found between the two groups in the demographic data (ie, age, sex, number of renal arteries), except for the body mass index. None of the right HARDNs resulted in major complications or open conversion, but two left HARDNs required conversion to open surgery. No difference was found between the two groups regarding estimated blood loss, warm ischemia time, or time to oral intake, although the right HARDN group had a longer mean operative time. No significant differences were found in the recipient's postoperative graft function or in the frequency of delayed graft function.

CONCLUSIONS

Right HARDN provided almost similar perioperative and postoperative outcomes compared with those of left HARDN. Our results indicate that right HARDN is a choice for living donor nephrectomy because of its technical feasibility, safety, and minimal invasiveness, which are comparable to those of left HARDN.

Hand-assisted right laparoscopic nephrectomy in living donor

OBJECTIVE

To assess results obtained with the authors' technique of right hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy in living kidney donors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 16 kidney donors who underwent hand-assisted right laparoscopic nephrectomy from February 2001 to July 2004. Among these patients, 7 were male and 9 were female, with mean age ranging between 22 and 58 years (mean 35.75).

RESULTS

Surgical time ranged from 55 to 210 minutes (mean 127.81 min) and warm ischemia time from 2 to 6 minutes (mean 3.78 min) with mean intra-operative blood loss estimated at 90.62 mL. There was no need for conversion in any case. Discharge from hospital occurred between the 3rd and 6th days (mean 3.81). On the graft assessment, immediate diuresis was seen in 15 cases (93.75%) and serum creatinine on the 7th post-operative day was 1.60 mg/dL on average. Renal vein thrombosis occurred in 1 patient (6.25%) who required graft removal, and lymphocele was seen in 1 recipient (6.25%).

CONCLUSION

Hand-assisted right laparoscopic nephrectomy in living donors is a safe and effective alternative to open nephrectomy. Despite a greater technical difficulty, the procedure presented low postoperative morbidity providing good morphological and functional quality of the graft on the recipient.

Laparoscopic right living donor nephrectomy

INTRODUCTION

Left laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) is preferred over right LDN due to technical ease. The purpose of this study was to compare results between right and left LDN and thereby determine whether substantial experience with right LDN can provide results equivalent to left LDN.

METHODS

All LDN from 2000 to 2004 were reviewed, and right LDN data compared to left LDN data. Statistical analyses included chi-square and Student t tests.

RESULTS

Two hundred thirteen left LDN (84%) were compared to 40 right LDN (16%). Donor age, gender, race, and body mass index, and multiple arteries were similar in right and left LDN groups. Operative and cold ischemia times were similar, but warm ischemia was longer for right LDN (3:55 +/- 1:22 minutes) than left LDN (3.18 +/- 1:06 minutes; P = .004). Despite this, renal allograft function was similar on postoperative day 7 (creatinine 1.77 +/- 1.21 for right LDN, 1.7 +/- 1.5 for left LDN) and at 1 year (right LDN 1.5 +/- 0.4, left LDN 1.23 +/- 0.28). Graft survival rate in the right LDN at 1 year was 97.5%.

CONCLUSIONS

This large experience with right LDN indicates that results comparable to left LDN can be obtained. This observation increases the options for LDN in patients with multiple left renal arteries, or with right renal cysts, or with right kidneys that are smaller in size compared to the contralateral left kidney.

Laparoscopic procurement of kidneys with multiple renal arteries is associated with increased ureteral complications in the recipient

This study investigates the effect of renal artery multiplicity on donor and recipient outcomes after laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Three-hundred and sixty-one sequential procedures were performed over a 4-year period. Forty-nine involved accessory renal arteries; of these, 36 required revascularization and 13 were small polar vessels and ligated. The 312 remaining kidneys with single arteries served as controls. Study variables included operative times, blood loss, hospital stay, graft function and donor and recipient complications. Kidneys with multiple revascularized arteries had a longer mean warm ischemia time (35.3 vs. 29.2 min, p = 0.0003), and more ureteral complications (6/36 vs. 10/312, p = 0.0013) than single-artery controls. In contrast, ligation of a small superior accessory artery had no significant effect on donor operative time, blood loss, or complication rate while providing similar recipient graft function compared to single-artery controls. Renal artery number is important in selecting the appropriate kidney for laparoscopic procurement. Given the current excellent results with right-sided donor nephrectomy, kidneys with single arteries should be preferentially procured, irrespective of side.

Laparoscopic Right Donor Nephrectomy: A Large Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic procurement of right donor kidneys is frequently avoided or performed using hand-assist devices because of concerns regarding donor safety, adequate exposure, and vessel length. The present study describes the authors' large series of right donor nephrectomies performed laparoscopically without the use of hand ports or other manual assist devices.

METHODS

The authors retrospectively analyzed all right laparoscopic donor nephrectomies performed at their center from November 1, 1999, to February 20, 2004. Study variables included operative times, blood loss, hospital stay, graft function, and donor and recipient complications. Left donor nephrectomies performed during the same period served as controls.

RESULTS

Of 387 laparoscopic kidney procurements, 54 (14 %) were right nephrectomies. Blood loss, extraction times, length of stay, and overall complication rates were similar between right and left donor groups. The mean operative time in the right nephrectomy group was significantly shorter than in the left nephrectomy group (169 +/- 25 and 186 +/- 29 min, respectively; P = 0.003). Graft function 1 month after transplantation and the incidence of delayed graft function were similar in both groups. There was one graft loss caused by thrombosis in the left nephrectomy group; other graft-related complications in the recipients were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This large single-center experience demonstrates that laparoscopic right donor nephrectomy performed without hand-assist devices is safe and yields kidneys with excellent function. The authors conclude that selection of the appropriate kidney for donation using this approach can be based on the same criteria that have traditionally governed open donor nephrectomy.

Right retroperitoneal versus left transperitoneal laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy

OBJECTIVES

To describe our preferred method of right laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (LDN) using a retroperitoneoscopic approach to determine the indications for, and overall rate of, right LDN and to compare the donor and recipient early outcomes of right retroperitoneal LDN to those of left transperitoneal LDN in a consecutive single-institution series.

METHODS

At our institution, LDN for allotransplantation was performed in 143 consecutive patients. The indications for right LDN (n = 29) included multiple left renal vessels (n = 18), early branching of the left renal artery (n = 1), left renal vein anomaly (n = 2), right renal arterial fibromuscular dysplasia (n = 2), right renal cyst (n = 3), mild right hydronephrosis with delay on renal scan (n = 1), or right nephrolithiasis (n = 2).

RESULTS

Right LDN was performed in 29 (20.3%) of 143 patients using a retroperitoneal approach in all but the first case. Right retroperitoneal LDN was associated with decreased blood loss and operative time compared with left transperitoneal LDN. The hospital stay, analgesic use, and donor serum creatinine at discharge were similar in both groups. Despite a statistically significantly increased warm ischemia time and decreased renal vein length, right retroperitoneal LDN was associated with recipient functional outcomes at 5 and 30 days after transplant that were no different from those after left transperitoneal LDN.

CONCLUSIONS

Right retroperitoneal laparoscopic LDN provides similar donor and recipient outcomes when compared with the left transperitoneal approach and obviates most of the technical challenges encountered with a right transperitoneal approach.

Technique, Indications and Outcomes of Pure Laparoscopic Right Donor Nephrectomy

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic nephrectomy for living renal transplantation has emerged as the gold standard. Nevertheless, experience with this technique for procuring right kidneys is limited. We report our single institution results of pure laparoscopic right donor nephrectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy was initiated at the our institution in November 1999. Patient selection was initially limited to the left kidney but right surgery was started 2 years later after 97 operations had been performed. We prospectively acquired data on the donor and recipient, and specifically analyzed outcomes of the right kidneys.

RESULTS

In a 40-month period 300 laparoscopic donor operations were performed. Overall 44 procedures (15%) were on the right side with the fraction greater (22%) after removing exclusion of the right kidney from laparoscopic selection criteria. In this cohort mean operative time was 170 minutes, significantly less than the 190 minutes for 50 contemporaneous left kidneys (p = 0.001). No case of right donor nephrectomy required open conversion and vessels were of adequate length. Donor and recipient complications were similar in the 2 groups without technical graft loss in the entire series.

CONCLUSIONS

Our method of laparoscopic right donor nephrectomy yields excellent graft quality with adequate vascular length and without the need for elaborate modifications or hand assistance. Moreover, the right operation is technically easier and it achieved comparable donor morbidity and recipient renal function. With sufficient experience the right kidney should be procured laparoscopically when indicated.

Pure Laparoscopic Right Donor Nephrectomy: Step-by-Step Approach

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Debate surrounds laparoscopic kidney procurement for right donor nephrectomy. We detail our pure laparoscopic technique of right kidney retrieval.

TECHNIQUE

We use a four-port transperitoneal approach and extract the kidney through a low Pfannenstiel incision. Important elements include: (1) dividing the triangular ligament; (2) identifying the vena cava early; (3) minimizing ureteral dissection; (4) mobilizing the kidney within Gerota's fascia; (5) dissecting the renal artery behind the vena cava; (6) cutting the extraction incision to the peritoneum; (7) applying a Hem-o-Lok and single metal clip on the artery; (8) placing the Endo-TA stapler on the renal vein adjacent to the vena cava; (9) cutting the vessels without clips/staples on the kidney side; and (10) retrieving the kidney manually.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

This is a reliable method of right pure laparoscopic donor nephrectomy that maximizes donor benefit and cost-effectiveness. Right laparoscopic nephrectomy is likely easier with this technique and should not be avoided if it is the preferred kidney for transplantation.

Right laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: a single institution experience

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (LLDN) is increasingly used by transplantation centers worldwide. As in open live donor nephrectomy, the left kidney is preferred for LLDN; however, not all potential donors have anatomy conducive to left nephrectomy. The purpose of our study, therefore, was to report on a large, single-institution experience with right LLDN performed using a hand-assisted, transperitoneal approach.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of 40 consecutive patients who underwent transperitoneal right hand-assisted LLDN at our institution. Information on donor age, relation to recipient, and indication for right-sided donation was collected. Surgical demographics included operative time, warm ischemia time, and estimated blood loss. Recipients were followed for graft loss and for long-term renal allograft function.

RESULTS

The indications for right-sided donor nephrectomy were a difference in split renal function of greater than 10%, multiple left renal vessels, and right renal cysts. The mean surgical time in our series was 115.8 min, with a mean estimated blood loss of 85.7 mL and a warm ischemia time of 116.0 seconds. Surgical and postoperative complications were limited. Mean serum creatinine levels in the recipients were 1.6 mg/dL on day 7, 1.4 mg/dL on day 30, and 1.4 mg/dL at 1 year after transplantation.

CONCLUSIONS

Right LLDN using a hand-assisted, transperitoneal technique was performed with minimal morbidity and favorable graft function. We believe that offering hand-assisted LLDN to patients with an indication for right-sided donation can safely and effectively increase the pool of donor organs available to patients with end-stage renal disease.