Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Complications of Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Complications of Laparoscopic and Robotic Urologic Surgery

Abstract

“Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is a unique surgical procedure due to the fact that the surgeon is operating on a healthy individual in order to benefit another patient he or she is unlikely managing, with a potential for complications ensuing in both the donor and the recipient patients. Overall surgical technique, anatomic considerations, and perioperative management remain important for minimizing the donor’s morbidity. In addition, maneuvers to maximize graft function for the recipient must be performed without compromising the donor patient. This includes minimizing warm ischemia time, ensuring a safe graft retrieval, and performing a careful dissection of the renal hilum and ureter to maximize graft length for implantation. Lastly, the long-term medical consequences of loss of renal function for the donor must be considered.”

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Clayman RV, Kavoussi LR, Soper NJ, et al. Laparoscopic nephrectomy: initial case report. J Urol. 1991;146:278–82.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ratner LE, Ciseck LJ, Moore RG, et al. Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. Transplantation. 1995;60:1047–9.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ratner LE, Montgomery RA, Kavoussi LR. Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. A review of the first 5 years. Urol Clin North Am. 2001;28:709–19.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Duchene DA, Winfield HN. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Urol Clin North Am. 2008;35:415–24, viii.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Shokeir AA. Open versus laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: a focus on the safety of donors and the need for a donor registry. J Urol. 2007;178:1860–6.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Nanidis TG, Antcliffe D, Kokkinos C, et al. Laparoscopic versus open live donor nephrectomy in renal transplantation: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2008;247:58–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Perry KT, Freedland SJ, Hu JC, et al. Quality of life, pain and return to normal activities following laparoscopic donor nephrectomy versus open mini-incision donor nephrectomy. J Urol. 2003;169:2018–2021.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Glannon W. Underestimating the risk in living kidney donation. J Med Ethics. 2008;34:127–8.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Giessing M, Turk I, Roigas J, et al. Laparoscopy for living donor nephrectomy – particularities of the currently applied techniques. Transpl Int. 2005;18:1019–27.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Schlunt LB, Harper JD, Broome DR, et al. Improved detection of renal vascular anatomy using multidetector CT angiography: Is 100% detection possible? J Endourol. 2007;21:12–7.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bhatti AA, Chugtai A, Haslam P, et al. Prospective study comparing three-dimensional computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for evaluating the renal vascular anatomy in potential living renal donors. BJU Int. 2005;96:1105–8.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hsu TH, Su LM, Ratner LE, et al. Impact of renal artery multiplicity on outcomes of renal donors and recipients in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Urology 61: 323–327, 2003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Buell JF, Edye M, Johnson M, et al. Are concerns over right laparoscopic donor nephrectomy unwarranted? Ann Surg. 2001;233:645–51.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Wright AD, Will TA, Holt DR, et al. Laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy: a look at current trends and practice patterns at major transplant centers across the United States. J Urol. 2008;179:1488–92.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Jacobs SC, Cho E, Dunkin BJ, et al. Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: the University of Maryland 3-year experience. J Urol. 2000;164:1494–9.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Jacobs SC, Cho E, Foster C, et al. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: the University of Maryland 6-year experience. J Urol. 2004;171:47–51.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ng CS, Abreu SC, Abou El-Fettouh HI, et al. Right retroperitoneal versus left transperitoneal laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. Urology. 2004;63:857–61.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Su LM, Ratner LE, Montgomery RA, et al. Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: trends in donor and recipient morbidity following 381 consecutive cases. Ann Surg. 2004;240:358–63.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Leventhal JR, Kocak B, Salvalaggio PR, et al. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy 1997 to 2003: lessons learned with 500 cases at a single institution. Surgery. 2004;136:881–90.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kocak B, Koffron AJ, Baker TB, et al. Proposed classification of complications after live donor nephrectomy. Urology. 2006;67:927–31.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Melcher ML, Carter JT, Posselt A, et al. More than 500 consecutive laparoscopic donor nephrectomies without conversion or repeated surgery. Arch Surg. 2005;140:835–9; discussion 839–40.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Sundaram CP, Martin GL, Guise A, et al. Complications after a 5-year experience with laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: the Indiana University experience. Surg Endosc. 2007; 21:724–8.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Breda A, Bui MH, Liao JC, et al. Association of bowel rest and ketorolac analgesia with short hospital stay after laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Urology. 2007;69: 828–31.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Breda A, Veale J, Liao J, et al. Complications of laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy and their management: the UCLA experience. Urology. 2007;69:49–52.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Chin EH, Hazzan D, Herron DM, et al. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: intraoperative safety, immediate morbidity, and delayed complications with 500 cases. Surg Endosc. 2007;21:521–6.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Pareek G, Hedican SP, Gee JR, et al. Meta-analysis of the complications of laparoscopic renal surgery: comparison of procedures and techniques. J Urol. 2006;175:1208–13.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Abreu SC, Goldfarb DA, Derweesh I, et al. Factors related to delayed graft function after laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. J Urol. 2004;171:52–7.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Lee KS, Hong JH, Jeon SS, et al. Comparison of graft survival in live donor nephrectomy: hand-assisted laparoscopic v open procedures. J Endourol. 2007;21:866–71.

    Google Scholar 

  29. 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;166:1270–3; discussion 1273–4.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Bargman V, Sundaram CP, Bernie J, et al. Randomized trial of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy with and without hand assistance. J Endourol. 2006;20:717–22.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Velidedeoglu E, Williams N, Brayman KL, et al. Comparison of open, laparoscopic, and hand-assisted approaches to live-donor nephrectomy. Transplantation. 2002;74:169–72.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Kocak B, Baker TB, Koffron AJ, et al. Laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy: a single-center sequential experience comparing hand-assisted versus standard technique. Urology. 2007;70:1060–3.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Bachmann A, Wolff T, Ruszat R, et al. Retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy: a retrospective, non-randomized comparison of early complications, donor and recipient outcome with the standard open approach. Eur Urol. 2005;48:90–6; discussion 96.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Tooher RL, Rao MM, Scott DF, et al. A systematic review of laparoscopic live-donor nephrectomy. Transplantation. 2004;78:404–14.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Hubert J, Renoult E, Mourey E, et al. Complete robotic-assistance during laparoscopic living donor nephrectomies: an evaluation of 38 procedures at a single site. Int J Urol. 2007;14:986–9.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Horgan S, Galvani C, Gorodner MV, et al. Effect of robotic assistance on the “learning curve” for laparoscopic hand-assisted donor nephrectomy. Surg Endosc. 2007;21: 1512–7.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Gill IS, Canes D, Aron M, et al. Single port transumbilical (E-NOTES) donor nephrectomy. J Urol. 2008;180:637–41; discussion 641.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Desai M. Single-port surgery for donor nephrectomy: a new era in laparoscopic surgery? Nat Clin Pract Urol. 2009;6:1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Morrisroe SN, Wall RT, Lu AD. Unilateral pulmonary edema after laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: report of two cases. J Endourol. 2007;21:760–2.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Biglarnia A, Bergqvist D, Johansson M, et al. Venous thromboembolism in live kidney donors – a prospective study. Transplantation. 2008;86:659–61.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Rehman J, Boglia J, Chughtai B, et al. High body mass index in muscular patients and flank position are risk factors for rhabdomyolysis: case report after laparoscopic live-donor nephrectomy. J Endourol. 2006;20:646–50.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Glassman DT, Merriam WG, Trabulsi EJ, et al. Rhabdomyolysis after laparoscopic nephrectomy. JSLS. 2007;11:432–7.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Kuang W, Ng CS, Matin S, et al. Rhabdomyolysis after laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Urology. 2002;60:911.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Kok NF, Ijzermans JN, Schouten O, et al. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in obese donors: easier to implement in overweight women? Transpl Int. 2007;20:956–61.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Thomas MA, Rha KH, Ong AM, et al. Optical access trocar injuries in urological laparoscopic surgery. J Urol. 2003;170:61–3.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Siqueira TM Jr, Paterson RF, Kuo RL, et al. The use of blunt-tipped 12-mm trocars without fascial closure in laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. JSLS. 2004;8:47–50.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Regan JP, Cho ES, Flowers JL. Small bowel obstruction after laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Surg Endosc. 2003;17:108–10.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Biggs G, Hafron J, Feliciano J, et al. Treatment of splenic injury during laparoscopic nephrectomy with BioGlue, a surgical adhesive. Urology. 2005;66:882.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Friedman AL, Peters TG, Jones KW, et al. Fatal and nonfatal hemorrhagic complications of living kidney donation. Ann Surg. 2006;243:126–30.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Rosenblatt GS, Conlin MJ. Clipless management of the renal vein during hand-assist laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. BMC Urol. 2006;6:23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Sundaram CP, Bargman V, Bernie JE. Methods of vascular control during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. J Endourol. 2006;20:467–9; discussion 469–70.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Leonardo C, Guaglianone S, De Carli P, et al. Laparoscopic nephrectomy using Ligasure system: preliminary experience. J Endourol. 2005;19:976–8.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Constant DL, Florman SS, Mendez F, et al. Use of the LigaSure vessel sealing device in laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy. Transplantation. 2004;78:1661–4.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Landman J, Kerbl K, Rehman J, et al. Evaluation of a vessel sealing system, bipolar electrosurgery, harmonic scalpel, titanium clips, endoscopic gastrointestinal anastomosis vascular staples and sutures for arterial and venous ligation in a porcine model. J Urol. 2003;169:697–700.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Kerbl K, Chandhoke PS, Clayman RV, et al. Ligation of the renal pedicle during laparoscopic nephrectomy: a comparison of staples, clips, and sutures. J Laparoendosc Surg. 1993;3:9–12.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Casale P, Pomara G, Simone M, et al. Hem-o-lok clips to control both the artery and the vein during laparoscopic nephrectomy: personal experience and review of the literature. J Endourol. 2007;21:915–8.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Sooriakumaran P, Kommu SS, Cooke J, et al. Evaluation of a commercial vascular clip: risk factors and predictors of failure from in vitro studies. BJU Int. 2009;103:1410–2.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Baumert H, Ballaro A, Arroyo C, et al. The use of polymer (Hem-o-lok) clips for management of the renal hilum during laparoscopic nephrectomy. Eur Urol. 2006;49:816–9.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Ponsky L, Cherullo E, Moinzadeh A, et al. The Hem-o-lok clip is safe for laparoscopic nephrectomy: a multi-institutional review. Urology. 2008;71:593–6.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Deng DY, Meng MV, Nguyen HT, et al. Laparoscopic linear cutting stapler failure. Urology. 2002;60:415–9; discussion 419–20.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Meng MV, Freise CE, Kang SM, et al. Techniques to optimize vascular control during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Urology. 2003;61:93–7; discussion 97–8.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Kouba E, Smith AM, Derksen JE, et al. Efficacy and safety of en bloc ligation of renal hilum during laparoscopic nephrectomy. Urology. 2007;69:226–9.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Sharma A, Heer M, Subramanaym Malladi SV, et al. Chylous ascites after laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. J Endourol. 2005;19:839–40.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Shafizadeh SF, Daily PP, Baliga P, et al. Chylous ascites secondary to laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Urology. 2002;60:345.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Caumartin Y, Pouliot F, Sabbagh R, et al. Chylous ascites as a complication of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Transpl Int. 2005;18:1378–81.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Kim FJ, Pinto P, Su LM, et al. Ipsilateral orchialgia after laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. J Endourol. 2003;17:405–9.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Gjertson CK, Sundaram CP. Testicular pain following laparoscopic renal surgery. J Urol. 2008;180:2037–40; discussion 2040–1.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Metcalfe PD, Hickey L, Lawen JG. Bladder perforation during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Can J Urol. 2004;11:2456–8.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Helling TS. Injuries incurred during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy with the endocatch recovery system. Am J Transplant. 2006;6:1088.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Soulsby RE, Evans LJ, Rigg KM, et al. Warm ischemic time during laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: effects on graft function. Transplant Proc. 2005;37:620–2.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Mohamed HK, Lin A, Savage SJ, et al. Parenchymal transection of the kidney inflicted by endocatch bag entrapment during a laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Am J Transplant. 2006;6:232–5.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Shalhav AL, Siqueira TM Jr, Gardner TA, et al. Manual specimen retrieval without a pneumoperitoneum preserving device for laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. J Urol. 2002;168:941–4.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Sasaki TM, Finelli F, Bugarin E, et al. Is laparoscopic donor nephrectomy the new criterion standard? Arch Surg. 2000;135:943–7.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Bergman S, Feldman LS, Carli F, et al. Intraoperative fluid management in laparoscopic live-donor nephrectomy: challenging the dogma. Surg Endosc. 2004;18:1625–30.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Brennan TV, Freise CE, Fuller TF, et al. Early graft function after living donor kidney transplantation predicts rejection but not outcomes. Am J Transplant. 2004;4:971–9.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Novick AC: Renal hypothermia: in vivo and ex vivo. Urol Clin North Am. 1983;10:637–44.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Jablonski P, Howden B, Leslie E, et al. Recovery of renal function after warm ischemia. I. The effect of chlorpromazine and phenoxybenzamine. Transplantation. 1983;35:535–9.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Mertens zur Borg IR, Lim A, Verbrugge SJ, et al. Effect of intraabdominal pressure elevation and positioning on hemodynamic responses during carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum for laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a prospective controlled clinical study. Surg Endosc. 2004;18:919–23.

    Google Scholar 

  79. McDougall EM, Monk TG, Wolf JS Jr, et al. The effect of prolonged pneumoperitoneum on renal function in an animal model. J Am Coll Surg. 1996;182:317–28.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Lind MY, Hazebroek EJ, Bajema IM, et al. Effect of prolonged warm ischemia and pneumoperitoneum on renal function in a rat syngeneic kidney transplantation model. Surg Endosc. 2006;20:1113–8.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Iwata T, Gilispie A, Jorns C, et al. Microdialysis monitoring for evaluation of the influence exerted by pneumoperitoneum on the kidney: an experimental study. Surg Endosc. 2008;22:938–42.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Bolte SL, Chin LT, Moon TD, et al. Maintaining urine production and early allograft function during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Urology. 2006;68:747–50.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Mertens zur Borg IR, Kok NF, Lambrou G, et al. Beneficial effects of a new fluid regime on kidney function of donor and recipient during laparoscopic v open donor nephrectomy. J Endourol. 2007;21:1509–15.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Mertens zur Borg IR, Di Biase M, Verbrugge S, et al. Comparison of three perioperative fluid regimes for laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a prospective randomized dose-finding study. Surg Endosc. 2008;22:146–50.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Amukele SA, Belletete B, Samadi AA, et al. Urologic complications in renal transplant recipients by donor type. J Endourol. 2006;20:771–5.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Breda A, Bui MH, Liao JC, et al. Incidence of ureteral strictures after laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. J Urol. 2006;176:1065–8.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Lind MY, Hazebroek EJ, Kirkels WJ, et al. Laparoscopic versus open donor nephrectomy: ureteral complications in recipients. Urology. 2004;63:36–9; discussion 39–40.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Rizvi SA, Naqvi SA, Jawad F, et al. Living kidney donor follow-up in a dedicated clinic. Transplantation. 2005;79:1247–51.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Sansalone CV, Maione G, Aseni P, et al. Early and late residual renal function and surgical complications in living donors: a 15-year experience at a single institution. Transplant Proc. 2006;38:994–5.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, NY, USA

    Alexei Wedmid MD & Michael A. Palese

Authors
  1. Alexei Wedmid MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael A. Palese
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael A. Palese .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Montefiore Medical Center, Department of Urology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bainbridge Ave. 3400, Bronx, 10461, New York, USA

    Reza Ghavamian

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Wedmid, A., Palese, M.A. (2010). Complications of Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy. In: Ghavamian, R. (eds) Complications of Laparoscopic and Robotic Urologic Surgery. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-60761-676-4_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-60761-676-4_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-60761-675-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-60761-676-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation