Ureteral complications in the era of laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy: Do we need to preserve the gonadal vein with the specimen?

Journal of Endourology

Volumn 24, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 247-251

  Kocak, Burak ^a   Baker, Talia B ^b   Koffron, Alan J ^b   Leventhal, Joseph R ^b  

^a Memorial Hospital   (Turkey)

^b NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CREATININE;

ACUTE KIDNEY TUBULE NECROSIS; ADRENAL HEMATOMA; ADRENAL VEIN INJURY; ADULT; AGED; AORTA INJURY; ARTICLE; BODY MASS; CHYLOUS ASCITES; CREATININE BLOOD LEVEL; DELAYED GRAFT FUNCTION; DIAPHRAGMATIC TEAR; FEMALE; GONAD; GRANULOMA; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMAN; ILEUS; INTESTINE OBSTRUCTION; ISCHEMIA; KIDNEY FAILURE; LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY; LENGTH OF STAY; LIVING DONOR; LUMBAR VEIN INJURY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NEPHRECTOMY; ORGAN PRESERVATION; PARESTHESIA; PEROPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PNEUMOPERITONEUM; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; POSTOPERATIVE HEMORRHAGE; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RENAL ARTERIAL INJURY; RENAL VEIN INJURY; SCROTAL SWELLING; SEROSAL BOWEL INJURY; SPLENIC CAPSULAR TEAR; STENT; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; URETER DISEASE; URETER INJURY; URETER STRICTURE; URINE RETENTION; WOUND INFECTION;

ADULT; DEMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; GONADS; HUMANS; INTRAOPERATIVE CARE; INTRAOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; LAPAROSCOPY; LIVING DONORS; MALE; NEPHRECTOMY; POSTOPERATIVE CARE; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; URETER;

EID: 76749138149     PISSN: 08927790     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1089/end.2009.0414     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Nogueira JM, Cangro CB, Fink JC, et al. A comparison of recipient renal outcomes with laparoscopic versus open live donor nephrectomy. Transplantation 1999;67:722-728.
2. Philosophe B, Kuo PC, Schweitzer EJ, et al. Laparoscopic versus open donor nephrectomy: Comparing ureteral complications in the recipients and improving the laparoscopic technique. Transplantation 1999;68:497-502.
3. Kavoussi LR. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Kidney Int 2000;57:2175-2186.
4. Ratner LE, Montgomery RA, Kavoussi LR. Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. A review of the first 5 years. Urol Clin North Am 2001;28:709-719.
5. Jacobs SC, Cho E, Dunkin BJ, et al. Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: The University of Maryland 3-year experience. J Urol 2000;164:1494-1499.
6. Leventhal JR, Deeik RK, Joehl RJ, et al. Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy-is it safe? Transplantation 2000;70: 602-606.
7. Yedidag EN, Stuart FP, Kaufman DB. Renal artery anatomic variability: Implications for kidney transplantation. Contemp Surg 1995;46:181-186.
8. Breda A, Bui MH, Liao JC, et al. Incidence of ureteral strictures after laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. J Urol 2006;176: 1065-1068.
9. Carter JT, Freise CE, McTaggart RA, et al. Laparoscopic procurement of kidneys with multiple renal arteries is associated with increased ureteral complications in the recipient. Am J Transplant 2005;5:1312-1318.
10. Fuller TF, Deger S, Böchler A, et al. Ureteral complications in the renal transplant recipient after laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy. Eur Urol 2006;50:535-541.
11. Kuo PC, Cho ES, Flowers JL, et al. Laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy and multiple renal arteries. Am J Surg 1998; 176:559-563.
12. Troppmann C, Wiesmann K, McVicar JP, et al. Increased transplantation of kidneys with multiple renal arteries in the laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy era. Arch Surg 2001; 136:897-907.
13. Kumar A, Kumar R, Bhandari M. Significance of routine JJ stenting in living related renal transplantation: A prospective, randomized study. Transplant Proc 1998;30:2995-2997.
14. Mangus RS, Haag BW. Stented versus nonstented extravesical ureteroneocystostomy in renal transplantation: A meta-analysis. Am J Transplant 2004;4:1889-1896.