World Journal of Laparoscopic Surgery

Register      Login

VOLUME 13 , ISSUE 2 ( May-August, 2020 ) > List of Articles

Original Article

Retroperitoneal Single-port Donor Nephrectomy through Lumbotomy Incision: An Experience of 30 Cases

Navdeep Singh, Deepesh B Kenwar, Sarbpreet Singh, Soham Dasgupta, Kunal Kapoor, Ashish Sharma

Citation Information : Singh N, Kenwar DB, Singh S, Dasgupta S, Kapoor K, Sharma A. Retroperitoneal Single-port Donor Nephrectomy through Lumbotomy Incision: An Experience of 30 Cases. World J Lap Surg 2020; 13 (2):61-64.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10033-1399

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 08-12-2020

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2020; The Author(s).


Introduction: Over the years, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) has evolved as a preferred alternative to open-donor nephrectomy (ODN). Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy can be performed either by transperitoneal or retroperitoneal route. Retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy (RPLDN) results in less analgesic requirement, decreased hospital stay, and better cosmetic acceptance by the donors. Lumbotomy incision has been thought to be an ideal approach without any muscle being cut but is limited by the amount of space in open surgery. Materials and methods: Between November 2014 and September 2016, 350 donor nephrectomies were performed at our department. All the surgeries were performed by a single surgeon. Thirty patients consented for translumbar RPLDN out of the 82 donor nephrectomies assigned to that particular surgeon. Visual analog scale (VAS) was used to evaluate the severity of pain on postoperative day (POD)0 and POD1. Results: Mean age of donors was 44.7 ± 11.4 years, M:F ratio 9:21. Average duration of surgery was 170.33 ± 52 minutes. Four patients (13.3%) had double renal arteries and one patient had double renal vein. In one patient, retrieval was performed by an open approach. No patient had surgical site infection. Most patients (28/30) had a VAS score of <4, and did not require any additional analgesics beyond POD0. Conclusion: Single-site translumbar RPLDN is a feasible alternative approach to the donor surgery.

  1. Wolfe RA, Ashby VB, Milford EL, et al. Comparison of mortality in all patients on dialysis, patients on dialysis awaiting transplantation, and recipients of a first cadaveric transplant. N Engl J Med 1999;341(23):1725–1730.
  2. Hariharan S, Johnson CP, Bresnahan BA, et al. Improved graft survival after renal transplantation in the United States, 1988–1996. N Engl J Med 2000;342(9):605–612.
  3. Ratner LE, Ciseck LJ, Moore RG, et al. Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. Transplantation 1995;60(9):1047–1049.
  4. Nicholson ML, Elwell R, Kaushik M, et al. Health-related quality of life after living donor nephrectomy: a randomized controlled trial of laparoscopic vs open nephrectomy. Transplantation 2011;91:457–461.
  5. Dunn JF, Nylander Jr WA, Richie RE, et al. Living related kidney donors. A 14 year experience. Ann Surg 1986;203(6):637–643. DOI: 10.1097/00000658-198606000-00008.
  6. Nanidis TG, Antcliffe D, Kokkinos C, et al. Laparoscopic vs open live donor nephrectomy in renal transplantation: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg 2008;247(1):58–70. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e318153fd13.
  7. Greco F, Hoda MR, Alcaraz A, et al. Laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy: analysis of the existing literature. Eur Urol 2010;58(4):498–509. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2010.04.003.
  8. Yang SC, Park DS, Lee DH, et al. Retroperitoneal endoscopic live donor nephrectomy: report of 3 cases. J Urol 1995;153(6):1884–1886. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5347(01)67339-7.
  9. Yagisawa T, Amano H, Ito F, et al. Adrenal hemangioma removed by a retroperitoneoscopic procedure. Int J Urol 2001;8(8):457. DOI: 10.1046/j.1442-2042.2001.00352.x.
  10. Gill IS, Uzzo RG, Hobart MG, et al. Laparoscopic retroperitoneal live donor nephrectomy for purpose of allotransplantation and autotransplantation. J Urol 2000;164(5):1500–1504. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)67015-2.
  11. Flowers JL, Jacobs S, Cho E, et al. Comparison of open and laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. Ann Surg 1997;226(4):483–489. DOI: 10.1097/00000658-199710000-00009.
  12. London E, Rudich S, McVicar J, et al. Equivalent renal allograft function with Laparoscopic vs open live donor nephrectomy. Transplant Proc 1999;31(1–2):258–260. DOI: 10.1016/S0041-1345(98)01526-7.
  13. Ratner LE, Kavoussi LR, Schulam PG, et al. Comparison of laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy vs the standard open approach. Transplant Proc 1997;29(1–2):138–139. DOI: 10.1016/S0041-1345(96)00037-1.
  14. Merlin TL, Scott DF, Rao MM, et al. The safety and efficacy of laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: a systematic review. Transplantation 2000;70(12):1659–1666. DOI: 10.1097/00007890-200012270-00001.
  15. Ryu DS, Park WJ, Oh TH. Retroperitoneal laparoendoscopic single-site surgery in urology: initial experience. J Endourol 2009;23(11): 1857–1862. DOI: 10.1089/end.2009.0254.
  16. Pansadoro V. The posterior lumbotomy. BJU Int 2005;95(7):1121–1131. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2005.05483.x.
  17. Raman JD, Bensalah K, Bagrodia A, et al. Laboratory and clinical development of single keyhole umbilical nephrectomy. Urology 2007;70(6):1039–1042. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2007.10.001.
  18. Raman JD, Bagrodia A, Cadeddu JA. Single incision, umbilical laparoscopic vs conventional laparoscopic nephrectomy: a comparison of perioperative outcomes and short term measures of convalescence. Eur Urol 2009;55(5):1198–1204. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2008.08.019.
  19. Andonian S, Rais-Bahrami S, Atalla MA, et al. Laparoendoscopic single-site Pfannenstiel vs standard Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. J Endourol 2010;24(3):429–432. DOI: 10.1089/end.2009.0185.
  20. Canes D, Berger A, Aron M, et al. Laparo-endoscopic single site (LESS) vs standard laparoscopic left donor nephrectomy: matched-pair comparison. Eur Urol 2010;57(1):95–101. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2009.07.023.
  21. Gupta A, Ahmed K, Kynaston HG, et al. Laparoendoscopic single-site donor nephrectomy (LESS-DN) vs standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016;2016(5):CD010850. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010850.pub2.
  22. Zhu H, Shen C, Li X, et al. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a comparison between the transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approach during the learning curve. Urol Int 2013;90(2):130–135. DOI: 10.1159/000343989.
  23. Fan X, Xu K, Lin T, et al. Comparison of transperitoneal and retroperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJU Int 2013;111(4):611–621. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11598.x.
  24. Nadu A, Ekstein P, Szold A, et al. Ventilatory and hemodynamic changes during retroperitoneal and transperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy: a prospective real-time comparison. J Urol 2005;174(3):1013–1017. DOI: 10.1097/
  25. Kihara K. Application of gasless laparoendoscopic single port surgery, gasless, to partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: gasless-clampless partial nephrectomy as a multiply satisfactory method. Int J Urol 2012;19(1):3–4. DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-2042.2011.02881.x.
  26. 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(1):90. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2005.03.007.
  27. Tanabe K, Miyamoto N, Ishida H, et al. Retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy (RPLDN): establishment and initial experience of RPLDN at a single center. Am J Transplant 2005;5(4 Pt 1):739. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2004.00702.x.
  28. Tokodai K, Takayama T, Amada N, et al. Retroperitoneoscopic living donor nephrectomy: short learning curve and our original hybrid technique. Urology 2013;82(5):1054–1058. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2013.08.003.
  29. Desai MM, Strzempkowski B, Matin SF, et al. Prospective randomized comparison of transperitoneal vs retroperitoneal laparoscopic radical nephrectomy. J Urol 2005;173(1):38–41. DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000145886.26719.73.
  30. Sharma A, Singh S, Kumar S, et al. Single-incision laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: an initial experience. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl 2012;23(3):581–584.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.