BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy has become the new gold standard for kidney procurement in many high-volume transplant centres worldwide, but it is often limited to left-sided donor kidneys. Concerns about adequate anatomical renal vessel length and sufficient surgical exposure are the main obstacles to the use of the laparoscopic approach for right kidney live donors as well. MATERIAL AND METHODS: From 1998 to 2006 we performed laparoscopic kidney procurement in 73 live kidney donors on an intention-to-treat basis, harvesting a total of 48 left (LKG) and 25 right kidneys (RKG) for transplantation. We compared these two groups with respect to operating time, conversion rate, complications, hospital stay, and recipient outcome. RESULTS: There were no differences in outcome of donor patients after left (D-LKG) or right laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (D-RKG). Operating time was 160 min in D-RKG versus 164 min in D-LKG. Warm ischemia was below 150 s in both groups. Hospital stay was 7.0 (D-RKG) versus 6.7 days (D-LKG). Negative events on the donor site were one temporary nerve irritation in each group and one postoperative retroperitoneal hematoma in the left kidney group. Reasons to convert to open nephrectomy were bleeding in two patients in the left kidney group and adhesions in one patient in the right kidney group. The outcome of the recipients after left (R-LKG) or right kidney (R-RKG) transplantation was similar. One kidney was lost due to renal vein thrombosis (R-LKG). Postoperative ureter complications occurred in one patient of each group. One patient of the R-RKG and two patients of the R-LKG required lymphocele fenestration. All other kidney transplants worked without problems. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is a safe procedure and has been established as the method of choice for live kidney donation in our clinic. Laparoscopic procurement of right and left kidneys can be performed with comparable quality and outcome for donors and recipients.
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy has become the new gold standard for kidney procurement in many high-volume transplant centres worldwide, but it is often limited to left-sided donor kidneys. Concerns about adequate anatomical renal vessel length and sufficient surgical exposure are the main obstacles to the use of the laparoscopic approach for right kidney live donors as well. MATERIAL AND METHODS: From 1998 to 2006 we performed laparoscopic kidney procurement in 73 live kidney donors on an intention-to-treat basis, harvesting a total of 48 left (LKG) and 25 right kidneys (RKG) for transplantation. We compared these two groups with respect to operating time, conversion rate, complications, hospital stay, and recipient outcome. RESULTS: There were no differences in outcome of donorpatients after left (D-LKG) or right laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (D-RKG). Operating time was 160 min in D-RKG versus 164 min in D-LKG. Warm ischemia was below 150 s in both groups. Hospital stay was 7.0 (D-RKG) versus 6.7 days (D-LKG). Negative events on the donor site were one temporary nerve irritation in each group and one postoperative retroperitoneal hematoma in the left kidney group. Reasons to convert to open nephrectomy were bleeding in two patients in the left kidney group and adhesions in one patient in the right kidney group. The outcome of the recipients after left (R-LKG) or right kidney (R-RKG) transplantation was similar. One kidney was lost due to renal vein thrombosis (R-LKG). Postoperative ureter complications occurred in one patient of each group. One patient of the R-RKG and two patients of the R-LKG required lymphocele fenestration. All other kidney transplants worked without problems. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is a safe procedure and has been established as the method of choice for live kidney donation in our clinic. Laparoscopic procurement of right and left kidneys can be performed with comparable quality and outcome for donors and recipients.
Authors: Marc L Melcher; Jonathan T Carter; Andrew Posselt; Quan-Yang Duh; Marshall Stoller; Chris E Freise; Sang-Mo Kang Journal: Arch Surg Date: 2005-09
Authors: Fernando Meyer; Luiz S Santos; Andre E Varaschin; Andressa H Patriani; Bruno F Pimpao Journal: Int Braz J Urol Date: 2005 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.541
Authors: Ithaar H Derweesh; David A Goldfarb; Sidney C Abreu; Mahesh Goel; Stuart M Flechner; Charles Modlin; Lingmei Zhou; Stevan B Streem; Andrew C Novick; Inderbir S Gill Journal: Urology Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Niels F M Kok; May Y Lind; Birgitta M E Hansson; Desiree Pilzecker; Ingrid R A M Mertens zur Borg; Ben C Knipscheer; Eric J Hazebroek; Ine M Dooper; Willem Weimar; Wim C J Hop; Eddy M M Adang; Gert Jan van der Wilt; Hendrik J Bonjer; Jordanus A van der Vliet; Jan N M IJzermans Journal: BMJ Date: 2006-07-17
Authors: Kent T Perry; Stephen J Freedland; Jim C Hu; Michael W Phelan; Blaine Kristo; Albin H Gritsch; Jacob Rajfer; Peter G Schulam Journal: J Urol Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: L Broudeur; G Karam; I Chelghaf; S De Vergie; J Rigaud; M A Perrouin Verbe; Julien Branchereau Journal: World J Urol Date: 2019-05-25 Impact factor: 4.226