Laterality in laparoscopic hand assisted donor nephrectomy - Does it matter anymore? Outcomes of a large retrospective series

Osborne Vaz*, Argiris Asderakis, Videha Sharma, Zia Moinuddin, Mohan Shanmugam, Afshin Tavakoli, David van Dellen, Titus Augustine

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

This retrospective study was performed to analyse if laterality of the retrieved living donor kidney had any effect on donor and recipient outcomes after hand assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN). 739 donors who underwent HALDN between January 2006 and January 2018 at a large tertiary transplant centre in the United Kingdom were included. Donor outcomes in individuals undergoing right versus left HALDN were compared with respect to conversion rates, morbidity, warm and cold ischaemia times and recipient failure rates, vascular and ureteric complications. 604 (81.7%) underwent left HALDN and 135 (18.3%) underwent right HALDN, mean age was 47.1 years and 46.8 years respectively with comparable gender distribution. The operative time was shorter for the left side (p = 0.003) and improved during the study for the left but not the right side. In recipients who received left kidneys there were more early technical failures observed (8 versus 1) though not statistically significant. Most centres prefer performing a left nephrectomy and recipient surgeons prefer a left kidney for transplantation primarily because of having a longer vein. This large study provides reassurance that right HALDN nephrectomy is a safe procedure with similar outcomes to left HALDN.

Original languageEnglish
JournalSurgeon
Early online date27 Nov 2021
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 27 Nov 2021

Keywords

  • Laparoscopic nephrectomy
  • Laparoscopic surgery
  • Living donation
  • Renal transplantation
  • Surgical outcomes

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Laterality in laparoscopic hand assisted donor nephrectomy - Does it matter anymore? Outcomes of a large retrospective series'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this