Josef Mang1, Linda Hennig1, Nadine Biernath1, Lutz Liefeldt2, Anna Bichmann3, Bernhard Ralla1, Andreas Maxeiner1, Robert Peters1, Hannes Cash1, Klemens Budde2, Frank Friedersdorff4. 1. Department of Urology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany. 2. Department of Nephrology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany. 3. Department of Anesthesiology and Operative Intensive Care Medicine, Campus Charité Mitte, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany. 4. Department of Urology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany, Frank.Friedersdorff@charite.de.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In living donor transplantation choosing the right donor and donor side for laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is a challenging task in clinical practice. Knowledge about anomalies in renal blood supply are crucial to evaluate the feasibility of the operative procedure. Few data so far exist whether the existence of a retroaortic left renal vein has an impact on living kidney transplantation outcome for donor and recipient. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 221 patients who underwent laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy between 2011 and 2017 for existence of a retroaortic left renal vein. Clinical characteristics and operative outcomes for donors and recipients were analyzed. RESULTS: 221 patients underwent donor nephrectomy between 2011 and 2017; 11 patients (4.98%) showed the feature of a retroaortic left renal vein, and in 8 patients (72.7%) out of those 11 the left kidney was chosen for transplantation. Mean preoperative serum creatinine was 0.77 (0.49-0.98) mg/dL and 1.28 (0.97-1.64) mg/dL at discharge. In recipients mean serum creatinine preoperatively, after 1 week, 1 month,1 year, 2 and 3 years of follow-up was 10.36 (6.09-20.77) mg/dL, 1.71 (0.67-2.72), 1.33 (0.70-1.89), 1.31 (0.95-2.13), 1.31 (0.98-2.13) and 1.33 (1.03-1.84), respectively. Neither donors nor recipients suffered from any operative complications. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy of a left kidney with retroaortic renal vein is safe for the donor, without limitation in the outcome for the recipient.
INTRODUCTION: In living donor transplantation choosing the right donor and donor side for laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is a challenging task in clinical practice. Knowledge about anomalies in renal blood supply are crucial to evaluate the feasibility of the operative procedure. Few data so far exist whether the existence of a retroaortic left renal vein has an impact on living kidney transplantation outcome for donor and recipient. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 221 patients who underwent laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy between 2011 and 2017 for existence of a retroaortic left renal vein. Clinical characteristics and operative outcomes for donors and recipients were analyzed. RESULTS: 221 patients underwent donor nephrectomy between 2011 and 2017; 11 patients (4.98%) showed the feature of a retroaortic left renal vein, and in 8 patients (72.7%) out of those 11 the left kidney was chosen for transplantation. Mean preoperative serum creatinine was 0.77 (0.49-0.98) mg/dL and 1.28 (0.97-1.64) mg/dL at discharge. In recipients mean serum creatinine preoperatively, after 1 week, 1 month,1 year, 2 and 3 years of follow-up was 10.36 (6.09-20.77) mg/dL, 1.71 (0.67-2.72), 1.33 (0.70-1.89), 1.31 (0.95-2.13), 1.31 (0.98-2.13) and 1.33 (1.03-1.84), respectively. Neither donors nor recipients suffered from any operative complications. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy of a left kidney with retroaortic renal vein is safe for the donor, without limitation in the outcome for the recipient.
Authors: H Fonouni; A Mehrabi; M Golriz; M Zeier; B P Müller-Stich; P Schemmer; J Werner Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2014-04-28 Impact factor: 3.445
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
Authors: Frank Friedersdorff; Lisa Kothmann; Philipp Manus; Jan Roigas; Carsten Kempkensteffen; Ahmed Magheli; Jonas Busch; Lutz Liefeldt; Markus Giessing; Serdar Deger; Martin Schostak; Kurt Miller; Tom Florian Fuller Journal: Urol Int Date: 2016-08-30 Impact factor: 2.089
Authors: Deonna R Moore; David Serur; Dianne LaPointe Rudow; James R Rodrigue; Rebecca Hays; Matthew Cooper Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2015-08-12 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Andreas Maxeiner; Frank Friedersdorff; Josef Mang; Linda Hennig; Lutz Liefeldt; Michael Duerr; Lukas J Lehner; Anna Bichmann; Bernhard Ralla; Hannes Cash; Martin Christopher Kanne; Robert Peters Journal: Res Rep Urol Date: 2021-07-14