Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: An update

Current Opinion in Nephrology and Hypertension

Volumn 14, Issue 6, 2005, Pages 599-603

  Kieran, Kathleen ^a,b   Roberts, William W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN HEALTH SYSTEM   (United States)

Author keywords

Cost; Donor nephrectomy; Laparoscopy

Indexed keywords

ABDOMINAL PAIN; ARTERIOGRAPHY; BLEEDING; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DEEP VEIN THROMBOSIS; FOLLOW UP; GRAFT SURVIVAL; HERNIA; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTESTINE PERFORATION; KIDNEY DONOR; KIDNEY FUNCTION; KIDNEY ISCHEMIA; LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY; NEPHRECTOMY; OPERATION DURATION; PNEUMOTHORAX; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; POSTOPERATIVE PAIN; PREOPERATIVE EVALUATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECIPIENT; REVIEW; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 27444433521     PISSN: 10624821     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.mnh.0000170750.18409.96     Document Type: Review

References (31)

1. Clayman RV, Kavoussi LR, Soper NJ, et al. Laparoscopic nephrectomy: initial case report. J Urol 1991; 146:278-282.
2. Ratner LE, Cisek LJ, Moore RG, et al. Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. Transplantation 1995; 60:1047-1049.
3. Goel MC, Modlin CS, Mottoo AM, et al. Fate of donor kidney: laparoscopic versus open technique. J Urol 2004; 172:2326-2330.
4. El-Galley R, Hood N, Young CJ, et al. Donor nephrectomy: a comparison of techniques and results of open, hand-assisted and full laparoscopic nephrectomy. J Urol 2004; 171:40-43. A direct comparison of the three predominant techniques for donor nephrectomy and the complications associated with each.
5. Oyen O, Andersen M, Mathisen L, et al. Laparoscopic versus open living-donor nephrectomy: experiences from a prospective, randomized, single center study focusing on donor safety. Transplantation 2005; 79:1236-1240. A well-designed study with a focus on risk to the donor and a comprehensive evaluation of procedure-associated complications.
6. Ruiz-Deya G, Cheng S, Palmer E, et al. Open donor laparoscopic donor and hand assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a comparison of outcomes. J Urol 2001; 166:1270-1274.
7. Ponsky LE, Cherullo EE, Banks KLW, et al. Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy: incorporating the advantages of hand assisted and standard laparoscopy. J Urol 2003; 169:2053-2056.
8. Wolf JS, Merion RM, Leichtman AB, et al. Randomized controlled trial of hand-assisted laparoscopic versus open surgical live donor nephrectomy. J Urol 2001; 72:284-290.
9. Brown SL, Biehl TR, Rawlins MC, Hefty TR. Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: a comparison with the conventional open approach. J Urol 2001; 165:766-769.
10. Desai MM, Strzempkowski B, Matin SF, et al. Prospective randomized comparison of transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal laparoscopic radical nephrectomy. J Urol 2005; 173:38-41. An excellent prospective study on the newest techniques in minimally invasive renal surgery. A well-designed and thorough study.
11. Buell JF, Abreu SC, Hanaway MJ, et al. Right donor nephrectomy: a comparison of hand-assisted transperitoneal and retroperitoneal laparoscopic approaches. Transplantation 2004; 77:521-525. A retrospective analysis of minimally invasive approaches to the challenging right-side donor nephrectomy.
12. Ogan K, Lotan Y, Koeneman K, et al. Laparoscopic versus open retroperitoneal lymph node dissection: a cost analysis. J Urol 2002; 168:1945-1949.
13. Lotan Y, Duchene DA, Cadeddu JA, Koeneman KA. Cost comparison of hand assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy and open nephrectomy: analysis of individual parameters. J Urol 2003; 170:752-755.
14. Lotan Y, Cadeddu JA, Gettman MT. The new economics of radical prostatectomy: cost comparison of open, laparoscopic, and robot assisted techniques. J Urol 2004; 172:1431-1435.
15. Meraney AM, Gill IS. Financial analysis of open versus laparoscopic radical nephrectomy and nephroureterectomy. J Urol 2002; 167:1757-1762.
16. Live Organ Donor Consensus Group. Consensus statement on the live organ donor. JAMA 2000; 284:2919-2926.
17. Lumsdaine JA, Wigmore SJ, Forsythe JLR. Live kidney donor assessment in the UK and Ireland. Br J Surg 1999; 86:877-881.
18. El-Fettouh HA, Herts BR, Nimeh T, et al. Prospective comparison of 3-dimensional volume rendered computerized tomography and conventional renal arteriography for surgical planning in patients undergoing laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. J Urol 2003; 170:57-60.
19. El-Diasty TA, Shokeir AA, El-Ghar ME, et al. Contrast enhanced spiral computerized tomography in live kidney donors: a single session for anatomical and functional assessment. J Urol 2004; 171:31-34.
20. Lin C-H, Steinberg AP, Ramani AP, et al. Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy in the presence of circumaortic or retroaortic left renal vein. J Urol 2004; 171:44-46. An interesting paper that supports the contention that improved laparoscopic skills will continue to broaden the pool of kidneys considered for donation.
21. Troppmann C, Wiesmann K, McVicar JP, et al. Increased transplantation of kidneys with multiple renal arteries in the laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy era: surgical technique and surgical and nonsurgical donor and recipient outcomes. Arch Surg 2001; 136:897-907.
22. Abrahams HM, Friese CE, Kang S-M, et al. Technique, indications, and outcomes of pure laparoscopic right donor nephrectomy. J Urol 2004; 171:1793-1796.
23. Posselt AM, Mahanty H, Kang S-M, et al. Laparoscopic right donor nephrectomy: a large single-center experience. Transplantation 2004; 78:1665-1669.
24. Boorjian S, Munver R, Sosa RE, Del Pizzo JJ. Right laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: a single institution experience. Transplantation 2004; 77:437-440.
25. Janetschek G, Bagneri F, Abdelmaksoud A, et al. Ligation of the renal vein during laparoscopic nephrectomy: an effective and reliable method to replace vascular staplers. J Urol 2003; 170:1295-1297.
26. Shalhav AL, Siqueira TM, Gardner TA, et al. Manual specimen retrieval without a pneumoperitoneum preserving device for laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. J Urol 2002; 168:941-944.
27. Hollenbeck BK, Seifman BD, Wolf JS Jr. Clinical skills acquisition for hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. J Urol 2004; 171:35-39. One of the only papers which follows the initial learning curve for laparoscopy and provides numbers to illustrate the anticipated learning curve.
28. Simon SD, Castle EP, Ferrigni RG, et al. Complications of laparoscopic nephrectomy: the Mayo Clinic experience. J Urol 2004; 171:1447-1450. A large series of laparoscopic nephrectomies, with a comprehensive evaluation of complications.
29. Rivzi SAH, Naqvi SAA, Jawad F, et al. Living kidney donor follow-up in a dedicated clinic. Transplantation 2005; 79:1247-1251. The only recently published large-volume follow-up study on renal donors.
30. Jacobs SC, Cho E, Foster C. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: the University of Maryland 6-year experience. J Urol 2004; 171:47-51. An excellent review of the progression of surgical technique and patient selection, in addition to the standard review of results and complications.
31. Abreu SC, Goldfarb DA, Derweesh I, et al. Factors related to delayed graft function after laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. J Urol 2004; 171:52-57. A very useful review of patient-selection factors which may impact recipient graft function; helpful for surgeons and nonsurgeons alike.