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.
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.
Authors: Andreas Paul; Jürgen Treckmann; Anja Gallinat; Oliver Witzke; Udo Vester; Christoph E Broelsch Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2007-05-26 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: Nicole M Shockcor; Sam Sultan; Josue Alvarez-Casas; Philip S Brazio; Michael Phelan; John C LaMattina; Rolf N Barth Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2018-08-21 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: Alexander Bachmann; Stephen Wyler; Thomas Wolff; Lorenz Gürke; Jürg Steiger; Christoph Kettelhack; Thomas C Gasser; Robin Ruszat Journal: World J Urol Date: 2008-06-27 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Denise M D Özdemir-van Brunschot; Giel G Koning; Kees C J H M van Laarhoven; Mehmet Ergün; Sharon B C E van Horne; Maroeska M Rovers; Michiel C Warlé Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-03-27 Impact factor: 3.240