L Broudeur1, G Karam1, I Chelghaf1, S De Vergie1, J Rigaud1, M A Perrouin Verbe1, Julien Branchereau2,3,4. 1. Department of Urology and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital Center, 1 Place Alexis Ricordeau, 44093, Nantes Cedex 03, France. 2. Department of Urology and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital Center, 1 Place Alexis Ricordeau, 44093, Nantes Cedex 03, France. julien.branchereau@chu-nantes.fr. 3. Centre de Recherche en Transplantation et Immunologie (ou CRTI), Inserm, Nantes University, Nantes, France. julien.branchereau@chu-nantes.fr. 4. Institut de Transplantation Urologie Néphrologie (ou ITUN), CHU Nantes, Nantes, France. julien.branchereau@chu-nantes.fr.
Abstract
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.
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.
Entities:
Keywords:
Hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy; Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy; Living donor nephrectomy; Multiple renal arteries; Right kidney
Authors: R Ruszat; S F Wyler; T Wolff; T Forster; C Lenggenhager; M Dickenmann; T Eugster; L Gürke; J Steiger; T C Gasser; T Sulser; A Bachmann Journal: Transplant Proc Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 1.066
Authors: Robert C Minnee; Willem A Bemelman; Stefan Maartense; Frederike J Bemelman; Dirk J Gouma; Mirza M Idu Journal: Transplantation Date: 2008-01-27 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Niels F M Kok; Leonienke F C Dols; M G Myriam Hunink; Ian P J Alwayn; Khe T C Tran; Willem Weimar; Jan N M Ijzermans Journal: Transplantation Date: 2008-06-27 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher Journal: BMJ Date: 2009-07-21
Authors: Marit Helen Andersen; Lars Mathisen; Marijke Veenstra; Ole Oyen; Bjørn Edwin; Randi Digernes; Gunnvald Kvarstein; Tor Inge Tønnessen; Astrid Klopstad Wahl; Berit Rokne Hanestad; Erik Fosse Journal: Transplantation Date: 2007-07-15 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Josef Mang; Linda Hennig; Nadine Biernath; Lutz Liefeldt; Anna Bichmann; Bernhard Ralla; Andreas Maxeiner; Robert Peters; Hannes Cash; Klemens Budde; Frank Friedersdorff Journal: Urol Int Date: 2020-05-15 Impact factor: 2.089