Retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy in a patient with a double inferior vena cava

BACKGROUND: Vascular anomalies are considered a contraindication for laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. We report a successful hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy from a donor with a double inferior vena cava. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 37-year-old woman wanted to donate a kidney to her 44-year-old boyfriend who had hypertensive nephropathy. Preoperative donor imaging showed a double inferior vena cava. Each renal vein drains into the ipsilateral inferior vena cava division, making the left renal vein short. A single renal artery, vein, and ureter were noted on both sides. A hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic left nephrectomy was performed. Blood loss was minimal and the warm ischemia time was 2 minutes. Renal transplantation was performed with good initial perfusion and urine output. Cold ischemia and rewarming time was 25 minutes. RESULTS: The donor postoperative period was uneventful with infrequent need for pain relief. The donor was discharged in good condition 3 days postoperatively. The donor's kidney functions were within the normal range at follow-up 4 months postoperatively. The recipient was discharged in good condition 7 days postoperatively. The recipient is alive with good graft function and unremarkable complications at 4 month follow-up. CONCLUSION: Although vascular anomalies present a surgical challenge, we have shown the feasibility of performing hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy in a donor with a double vena cava and short renal vein. With comprehensive preoperative assessment, laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy can be done safely in donors with anatomical anomalies. This may increase the number of living donor kidney transplants as it offers lower postoperative morbidity and economic disincentives for potential donors.     

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.     

Interaortocaval renal artery dissection for right laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is gaining increasing popularity because the procedure helps reduce disincentives to live kidney donation and has increased the live kidney donor pool. The left kidney of the donor is the preferred allograft because the right renal vein is shorter. Similarly, the right renal artery might be foreshortened because it hides behind the inferior vena cava during laparoscopic transperitoneal dissection. There are instances, however, in which it is not practical to take the left kidney due to vascular anomalies or asymmetric function. We describe a novel technique for obtaining greater renal arterial length utilizing laparoscopic interaortocaval dissection.     

Hand-assisted laparoscopic right donor nephrectomy: surgical technique

Many centers have adopted laparoscopic and hand-assisted laparoscopic (HAL) techniques for live donor nephrectomy. Currently, the majority of laparoscopic living donor kidneys are procured from the left side because of the longer renal vein and improved transplantation. However, indications exist for right donor nephrectomy. We present our technique of HAL right-sided donor nephrectomy. A key feature of our dissection is wide mobilization of adjacent structures to achieve good exposure of the right kidney and inferior vena cava. In addition, the use of the hand permits optimal positioning of the kidney for division of the renal vessels with the vascular stapler. At the time of division of the renal vein, the stapler is placed on the wall of the inferior vena cava in order to gain maximal length. This technique has allowed HAL right-sided donor nephrectomy to be performed safely when indicated.     

Novel technique for hand assisted laparoscopic right donor nephrectomy

PURPOSE: Most surgeons divide the renal vein with a laparoscopic stapler during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. The right renal vein is usually shorter than the left one and using the stapler on the right side can result in a higher incidence of vascular complications for right kidney recipients. We present our experience with a new technique for hand assisted laparoscopic right donor nephrectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We designed a new vascular clamp to be completely inserted into the peritoneal cavity through the hand port incision in hand assisted laparoscopy. The renal vein with a cuff of the inferior vena cava was then excised. The defect in the inferior vena cava was sutured intracorporeally. RESULTS: A total of 80 kidney donors underwent hand assisted laparoscopic right donor nephrectomy using the new technique. Mean +/- SD operative time was 184 +/- 36 minutes. Operative time was decreased in the last 30 patients to 152 +/- 22 minutes. Intracorporeal suture time on the inferior vena cava was 16 +/- 3 minutes. No intraoperative complications were noted and there was no partial or total graft loss. Mean blood loss was 50 +/- 35 cc. Mean warm ischemia time was 4 +/- 2 minutes. Hospital discharge was on postoperative day 1 or 2 in 81% of patients. Graft function was normal in 78 recipients with a day 5 postoperative serum creatinine of 1.6 +/- 0.9 mg/dl. Two recipients showed delayed graft function and were treated medically. CONCLUSIONS: This technique for hand assisted laparoscopic right donor nephrectomy has proved to be safe and reproducible. We recommend practicing laparoscopic inferior vena cava suturing in the animal laboratory before performing it in humans.     

多层螺旋CT在活体肾移植供肾评估及取肾手术方式选择中的应用

目的 评价多层螺旋CT(MSCT)在活体肾移植供肾及取肾手术方式选择中的应用价值.方法 90例活体肾移植供者接受了MSCT平扫及动脉期、静脉期和排泄期的扫描.采用最大密度投影和容积再现技术进行血管成像,所有MSCT图像均由2位影像医师盲法下独立进行分析和评价.根据重建的CT图像,影像医师与肾移植医师进行讨论,选择左肾还是右肾作为供肾,并确定采用腹腔镜下取肾手术或是开放式取肾手术.结果 90例供者中,78例接受了左肾切取术,其中71例左侧供肾无明显变异者接受了常规腹腔镜下取肾手术,7例两侧肾脏均存在如副肾动脉、多支肾静脉,或者肾静脉位于腹主动脉后方等较明显变异,接受了左肾开放式取肾手术;12例因左肾存在明显变异,接受了右肾切取术,均行手辅助腹腔镜下取肾手术.所有术中记录的肾血管及集尿系统的解剖结构与术前MSCT评价一致,其准确率为100％.2位影像医师在评价肾动脉、肾静脉和集尿系统中显示了很好的一致性.90例取肾手术全部成功,移植术后受者未发生肾静脉血栓形成等血管并发症.结论 MSCT作为活体肾移植供者术前评价“一站式”检查方法,可以为供肾和取肾手术方式的选择提供准确、有价值的信息.     

Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy in a patient with duplex inferior vena cava

BACKGROUND: Modern imaging, such as CT and MRI, improves the preoperative assessment for variants of renal vasculature. We present a kidney donor with a duplex inferior vena cava. In conjunction with CT and hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery, live donor nephrectomy was performed successfully. METHODS: A 35-year-old woman wished to donate a kidney to her son. Preoperative CT showed normal functional kidneys without uretal duplication. A duplex inferior vena cava was noted below the level of the left renal vein. A hand-assisted transperitoneal laparoscopic left nephrectomy was performed. Blood loss was minimal and the warm ischemia time was 3 minutes. Renal transplantation was performed with good initial perfusion and urine output. RESULTS: The donor was discharged in good condition at 3 days postoperatively. Both donor and recipient are alive with good renal function and without late surgical complications at 9 months. CONCLUSIONS: Live donor nephrectomy is unique as it involves two different patients. Benefits from laparoscopic operation include less pain, shorter hospital stay, earlier resumption of normal food intake, and earlier return to full activity. Graft function was not deleteriously affected and the survival of graft and recipient was not affected. Vascular anomalies, although uncommon, had a significant influence on live renal transplantation. Our patient represents a case of a rare venous anomaly, which has an an incidence rate of 0.5% to 3%. Helical CT with reconstruction of vascular anatomy helped in evaluating donor vasculature. In conjunction with modern imaging techniques and laparoscopic operation, live donor nephrectomy can be performed safely, even in patients with vascular anomalies.     

Laparoscopic retroperitoneal live donor right nephrectomy for purposes of allotransplantation and autotransplantation

PURPOSE: We report the technique of and initial experience with retroperitoneal laparoscopic live donor right nephrectomy for purposes of renal allotransplantation and autotransplantation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 5 patients underwent retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy of the right kidney for autotransplantation in 4 and living related renal donation in 1. Indications for autotransplantation included a large proximal ureteral tumor, a long distal ureteral stricture and 2 cases of the loin pain hematuria syndrome. In all cases a 3-port retroperitoneal laparoscopic approach and a pelvic muscle splitting Gibson incision for kidney extraction were used. In patients undergoing autotransplantation the same incision was used for subsequent transplantation. RESULTS: All procedures were successfully accomplished without technical or surgical complications. Total mean operating time was 5.8 hours and average laparoscopic donor nephrectomy time was 3.1 hours. Mean renal warm ischemia time, including endoscopic cross clamping of the renal artery to ex vivo cold perfusion, was 4 minutes. Average blood loss for the entire procedure was 400 cc. Radionuclide scan on postoperative day 1 confirmed good blood flow and function in all transplanted kidneys. Mean analgesic requirement was 58 mg. fentanyl. Mean hospital stay was 4 days (range 2 to 8), and convalescence was completed in 3 to 4 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: In the occasional patient requiring renal autotransplantation live donor nephrectomy can be performed laparoscopically with renal extraction and subsequent transplantation through a single standard extraperitoneal Gibson incision, thus, minimizing the overall operative morbidity. Furthermore, these data demonstrate that live donor nephrectomy of the right kidney can be performed safely using a retroperitoneal approach with an adequate length of the right renal vein obtained for allotransplantation or autotransplantation.     

Complication arising from a duplicated inferior vena cava following laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy: a case report

Selecting a kidney for living donor nephrectomy is driven by the tenet that donors are left with the higher functioning kidney. Traditionally, the left kidney is used because it has a longer renal vein, which aids anastamosis, and has an easier surgical approach. Anomalous left renal vasculature is not considered a contraindication to living donor nephrectomy. In the case of duplicated inferior vena cava, no specific considerations have been reported. We present a 42-year-old patient with infrarenal duplication of the vena cava who underwent laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy. His postoperative course was complicated by painful scrotal swelling necessitating multiple emergency room visits. Ultrasonography revealed bilateral hydroceles 5 weeks after surgery, which resolved with the use of a scrotal sling. Intraoperative ligation of a visibly dilated left gonadal vein was the likely etiology. Careful consideration should be taken in living donor nephrectomy in patients with duplication of inferior vena cava.     

Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy for right kidneys: Experience in a German community hospital

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.     

A case of left inferior vena cava discovered by chance at nephrectomy for renal transplantation

A case of left inferior vena cava, in a 35-year-old woman, discovered by chance at nephrectomy for renal transplantation is reported. She was admitted to our hospital as a donor of the kidney to her son. She had no remarkable physical signs on chest or abdomen. All laboratory tests were within normal limits. Intravenous pyelogram showed no major abnormality except for the lower position of left kidney than right one. Abdominal aortogram and selective renal arteriogram revealed no abnormality. Bilateral renal arteries were single. Left nephrectomy for transplantation was performed on April 13, 1983. In this operation the left sided inferior vena cava was discovered by chance. Inferior vena cavography was taken postoperatively. It showed the left sided inferior vena cava, type C. Knowledge of the abnormalities of the left renal vein and inferior vena cava is of surgical importance for the urologist when renal transplantation is being considered.     

Retroperitoneoscopic right-sided donor nephrectomy with pre- and postcaval renal arteries

A 56-year-old male donor was evaluated for a kidney donation. Computed tomography angiography revealed 2 right renal arteries, 1 coursing in front and 1 behind the inferior vena cava. The renal scan showed a lower glomerular filtration rate on the right side. We present a technique of retroperitoneoscopic right-sided donor nephrectomy.     

A patient of successful renal transplantation using donor kidney with congenital abnormalities of the inferior vena cava

At the time of donor nephrectomy, congenital abnormalities of the inferior vena cava was discovered. A 56-year-old woman was worked up preoperatively and no abnormalities were found. Abdominal aortography was normal. At the time of operation, the inferior vena cava was located to the left and anterior to the abdominal aorta. In the renal hilus, the location of the renal artery and vein was reversal. We thought the ideas of operation and could successfully performed renal transplantation using donor kidney with congenital abnormalities of the inferior vena cava.     

The way to establish laparoscopic donor nephrectomy as the method of choice in live kidney donation--a single centre experience

INTRODUCTION: In contrast to the USA, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is rarely practised in German transplant centres. Safety concerns and difficulties with the learning curve of this advanced laparoscopic procedure are the main obstacles to the establishment of this operation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From 1998-2005, we performed laparoscopic kidney procurement in 50 live kidney donors on an intention to treat basis harvesting a total of 29 left and 21 right kidneys for transplantation. RESULTS: Negative adverse effects on the donor side were temporary nerve irritation (2 patients) and postoperative retroperitoneal hematoma. Reasons to convert to open nephrectomy were bleeding (2 patients) and adhesions (1 patient). On the recipient side, one kidney was lost due to renal vein thrombosis. Three patients required short-time dialysis after transplantation. All other kidney transplants worked without any problems. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is a safe procedure and has been established as the method of choice for live kidney donation in our hospital.     

Anatomic Diversity Encountered During Laparoscopic Hand-Assisted Transperitoneal Donor Nephrectomy: A Case Report of Complete Caval Duplication

Introduction

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is widely used to retrieve a kidney for transplantation. Preoperative evaluation of the donor is of crucial importance to the recipient. In particular, vascular anatomy should be assessed with the help of modern imaging modalities. We present a hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy of a kidney donor with a complete duplex vena cava.

后腹腔镜下亲属活体右侧供肾切取术经验总结

目的探讨后腹腔镜下亲属活体右侧供肾切取术的安全性,并总结相关临床经验。 方法回顾性分析2010年2月至2019年6月解放军总医院第八医学中心实施的14例亲属活体右侧供肾切取术临床资料,其中8例为后腹腔镜下供肾切取(腹腔镜组),6例为经腰部开放供肾切取(开放手术组)。腹腔镜组供者常规采取左侧卧位,腰部采用三套管法穿刺。采用成组t检验比较两组供者手术时间、腔静脉切口缝合时间、供肾动脉长度、供肾静脉长度、供肾热缺血时间、手术出血量和术后住院时间。P<0.05为差异有统计学意义。 结果14例亲属活体右侧供肾切取术均成功,两组供者术中均未输血,腹腔镜组供肾切取术中均未中转开腹。腹腔镜组与开放手术组供肾静脉长度分别为(2.2±0.4)和(1.2±0.3)cm,术中出血量分别为(45±12)和(80±10)mL,差异均有统计学意义(t＝1.042和5.781,P均<0.05)。两种术式手术时间、腔静脉切口缝合时间、供肾动脉长度、供肾热缺血时间及术后住院时间差异均无统计学意义(P均>0.05)。截至2019年8月,开放手术组和腹腔镜组供者中位随访时间分别为6个月(3～18个月)和8个月(3～24个月),均健康。受者术前及术后应用巴利昔单抗行免疫诱导治疗,术后免疫抑制方案为CNI＋抗代谢类药物＋糖皮质激素。移植肾功能均于术后2周内恢复,术后均顺利摆脱透析。截至2019年8月,14例受者随访时间3～12个月,期间受者及移植肾功能均正常。 结论亲属活体右侧供肾获取过程中采用腹腔镜联合Satinsky钳技术安全、可行,可较大限度地延长供肾静脉,且术中出血量更少。     

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: single-center experience in Egypt with 400 consecutive cases

INTRODUCTION: In this study, we present our experience with laparoscopic donor nephrectomy and evaluate the outcomes of donors and recipients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between March 2003 and August 2006, 400 laparoscopic donor nephrectomies were performed in our institution. Donors were evaluated for renal vasculature using computed tomography angiography. We used the left kidney in 329 donors and the right kidney in 71. Donor surgeries were done transperitoneally using three trocars on the left side and four trocars on the right side. Kidneys were extracted manually through a 7-cm Pfanenstiel incision. RESULTS: All cases were completed laparoscopically. Mean operative time was 117 +/- 34 minutes. Mean blood loss was 56 +/- 28 mL. None of the donors required a blood transfusion. Mean warm ischemia time was 2.6 +/- 0.4 minutes. The mean renal artery length was 3.1 +/- 0.4 cm; the mean renal vein length was 2.4 +/- 1.2 cm. Mean hospital stay was 2.1 days. No donor required readmission. Kidneys were transplanted successfully and the mean recipient creatinine on discharge was 1.2 +/- 0.6 mg/dL. One patient had a renal artery thrombosis on postoperative day 2. Another patient with double renal arteries had thrombosis of the smaller artery just after surgery. Acute tubular necrosis was seen in 17 patients, four of whom required dialysis. Kidney function recovered thereafter in all acute tubular necrosis cases. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic surgery is a minimally invasive approach for living donor nephrectomy with good functional outcomes. The donor benefits from lesser morbidity without compromising the anatomic or physiological outcome of the nephrectomized kidney.     

Hand-assisted laparoscopy for kidney sampling in living donors: the surgical technique

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery bridges the gap between open and Laparoscopic surgery. It involves introduction of the surgeon's hand into the insufflated abdomen. Hand-assisted laparoscopy is clearly advantageous for those laparoscopic procedures that require removal of relatively large amount of tissue intact as living donor nephrectomy is. Technically, a short midline incision is performed to introduce the non dominant operators'hand. Trocars are placed. The colon is then reflected, the ureter dissected with its surrounding vascularization and divided. The renal vein is controlled, by transecting the surrenal vein on the left side, and the genital vein in both sides. Then the artery is dissected close to the aorta on the Left side, behind the vena cava on the right side. An endoscopic stapler is used to transect the renal artery and the renal vein. The kidney is quickly removed through the midline incision and immediately washed with a cooled preservation solution. The different incisions are closed.     

Retroperitoneal laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy. Preliminary results.

PURPOSE: Living-donor nephrectomy is performed via a standard flank approach during open surgery in contrast to laparoscopy where kidneys are procured transperitoneally. Being more familiar with retroperitoneal laparoscopy for the surgery of the upper urinary tract, we investigated the feasibility of live donor nephrectomy by this approach. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed laparoscopic retroperitoneal left-sided nephrectomy in 3 living donors. The patients were placed in lumbotomy position. The retroperitoneal space was developed with blunt finger dissection, through a 2-cm mini-lumbotomy under the 12th rib in the posterior axillary line. 5 trocars were inserted. After primary access to the renal artery and vein, these were dissected to their junctions with the aorta and inferior vena cava, respectively, before freeing the kidney of its perinephric attachments. The kidney was delivered manually, through the slightly enlarged initial subcostal incision. RESULTS: The average duration of surgery was 83 min; warm ischemia time less than 5 min. Average blood loss was 120 cm(3). Donors did not present any postoperative morbidity and were discharged after an average of 2.3 days. Mean analgesic requirement was 5 mg morphine sulphate equivalent (0-15). Average convalescence was 13.3 days (10-18). All 3 kidneys harvested laparoscopically had immediate function with urine production after graft revascularization; serum creatinine levels returned to normal within 1 week. The first patient presented ureteral stenosis 2 months after surgery. He underwent ureteropyeloplasty using his native ureter. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic living-related-donor nephrectomy become a new standard for organ harvesting. Our data suggest that retroperitoneal laparoscopic donor nephrectomy may represent a reasonable option in centers in which more extensive experience has been accumulated with retroperitoneal than with transperitoneal laparoscopy for the surgery of the upper urinary tract.     

Hand assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma with inferior vena caval thrombus

PURPOSE: To our knowledge we present the initial clinical report of hand assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma with tumor thrombus extending into the inferior vena cava. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 76-year-old man was referred to our medical center with a 12.5 x 10 cm. stage T3b right renal tumor extending into the inferior vena cava. The caval thrombus was limited and completely below the level of the hepatic veins. After preoperative renal embolization via the hand assisted transperitoneal approach the right kidney was completely dissected with the renal hilum. Proximal and distal control of the inferior vena cava was obtained with vessel loops and a single lumbar vein was divided between clips. An endoscopic Satinsky vascular clamp was placed on the inferior vena cava just beyond its juncture with the right renal vein, thereby, encompassing the caval thrombus. The inferior vena cava was opened above the Satinsky clamp and a cuff of the inferior vena cava was removed contiguous with the renal vein. The inferior vena cava was repaired with continuous 4-zero vascular polypropylene suture and the Satinsky clamp was then removed. A literature search failed to reveal any similar reports of laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for stage T3b renal cell cancer. RESULTS: Surgery was completed without complication with an estimated 500 cc blood loss. Pathological testing confirmed stage T3b grade 3 renal adenocarcinoma with negative inferior vena caval and soft tissue margins. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of vascular laparoscopic instrumentation and the hand assisted approach enabled us to extend the indications for laparoscopic radical nephrectomy to patients with minimal inferior venal caval involvement.