International Urology and Nephrology

, Volume 52, Issue 2, pp 247–252 | Cite as

Robotic assisted kidney transplantation in grafts with multiple vessels: single center experience

  • Thekke Adiyat KishoreEmail author
  • Milka James Kuriakose
  • Gregory Pathrose
  • Vishn Raveendran
  • K. Vinod Kumar
  • V. Narayanan Unni
Urology - Original Paper



The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of robotic assisted kidney transplantation in graft with multiple vessels.

Materials and methods

Eighteen patients underwent RAKT with grafts with multiple vessels (GMVs) from living donor performed by a single surgeon in single institution. The retrospective data obtained were compared to patients who underwent robotic assisted kidney transplant (RAKT) with single vessel and also open kidney transplant with GMVs.


There were no significant differences in graft function outcome and perioperative parameters in all three groups. In comparison with OKT in GMVs we found that RAKT with GMVs had less pain score on post op 4th day. There was also a significant difference in mean analgesic requirement and incision length.


With increasing experience, grafts with challenging vascular anatomy can be taken up for RAKT and GMVs should not be considered as a contraindication for RAKT.


Robotic Surgery Kidney transplant Robotic assisted kidney transplant Graft with multiple vessels Renal transplant 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

None of the authors have any conflict of interests.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.


  1. 1.
    Meyer F, Nichele SA, Adamy A et al (2012) Early outcomes of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy with multiple renal arteries. Int Braz J Urol 38:496–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sezer TO, Solak I, Toz H et al (2012) Long-term outcomes of kidney transplants with multiple renal arteries: a retrospective study. Transplant Proc 44:1697–1699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yildirim M, Kucuk HF (2011) Outcomes of renal transplantations with multiple vessels. Transplant Proc 43:816–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Giulianotti P, Gorodner V, Sbrana F et al (2010) Robotic transabdominal kidney transplantation in a morbidly obese patient. Am J Transplant 10:1478–1482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Siena G, Campi R, Decaestecker K, Tuğcu V et al (2018) Robot-assisted kidney transplantation with regional hypothermia using grafts with multiple vessels after extracorporeal vascular reconstruction: results from the European Association of Urology Robotic Urology Section Working Group. Eur Urol Focus 4:175–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Adiyat KT, Vinod KK, Vishnu R, Ramaprasad MK, Unni VN, John RP (2018) Robotic-assisted renal transplantation with total extraperitonealization of the graft: experience of 34 cases. J Robot Surg 12:535–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Karam G, Kälble T, Alcaraz A, et al. (2014) European Association of Urology (EAU) Guidelines on kidney transplantation. Version 2014. Available at Accessed 4 July 2019
  8. 8.
    Benedetti E, Troppmann C, Gillingham K, Sutherland DE, Payne WD, Dunn DL et al (1995) Short-and long-term outcomes of kidney transplants with multiple renal arteries Ann Surg. 221:406PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kumar A, Gupta RS, Srivastava A, Bansal P (2001) Sequential anastomosis of accessory renal artery to inferior epigastric artery in the management of multiple arteries in live related renal transplantation: a critical appraisal. Clin Transplant 15:131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    El-Sherbiny M, Abou-Elela A, Morsy A et al (2008) The use of the inferior epigastric artery for accessory lower polar artery revascularization in live donor renal transplantation. Int Urol Nephrol 40:283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chin JL, Stiller CR (1986) Microvascular surgery as an ad- junctive tool in renal transplantation. Can J Surg 29:263PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Novick AC (1984) Microvascular reconstruction of complex branch renal artery disease. Urol Clin N Am 11:465Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Oberholzer J, Giulianotti P, Danielson KK et al (2013) Minimally invasive robotic kidney transplantation for obese patients previously denied access to transplantation. Am J Transplant 13:721–728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Spaggiari M, Lendacki FR, Di Bella C, Giulianotti PC, Benedetti E, Oberholzer J, Tzvetanov I (2018) Minimally invasive, robot-assisted procedure for kidney transplantation among morbidly obese: positive outcomes at 5 years post-transplant. Clin Transplant 32:e13404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wagenaar S, Nederhoed JH, Hoksbergen AWJ et al (2017) Minimally invasive, laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted techniques versus open techniques for kidney transplant recipients: a systematic review. Eur Urol 72:205–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Menon M, Abaza R, Sood A et al (2014) Robotic kidney transplantation with regional hypothermia: evolution of a novel procedure utilizing the IDEAL guidelines (IDEAL phase 0 and 1). Eur Urol 65:1001–1009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Menon M, Sood A, Bhandari M et al (2014) Robotic kidney transplantation with regional hypothermia: a step-by-step description of the Vtikuti Urology Institute-Medanta technique (IDEAL phase 2a). Eur Urol 65:991–1000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sood A, Ghosh P, Jeong W et al (2015) Minimally invasive kidney transplantation: perioperative considerations and key 6-month outcomes. Transplantation 99:316–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Urology and NephrologyAster MedcityCheranalloreIndia

Personalised recommendations