Objectives: To compare the operative results and outcomes between right and left laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (LLDN). Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the first 50 consecutive LLDN in Indonesia performed between November 2011 and February 2013. Of these patients, 6 underwent right LLDNs and 44 left LLDNs. All patients underwent LLDNs in Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital. All LLDNs were done by the same surgical teams. Intraoperative, post-operative donor and recipient data results were compared.Results: There were no significant differences of intraoperative, post-operative and recipient data results in both groups. The first warm ischemic time (mean±SD, 6min 55sec±145sec vs 7min 37sec±177 sec, p>0.05), the second warm ischemic time (41min 35sec ± 7min 45sec vs 48min 36sec ± 8min 41sec, p>0.05), and the operative time (4hour 41min ± 31min vs 4hour 32min ± 49 min, p>0.05) showed similar results in the right and left LLDN, respectively. Active mobilization on 72-hour post-operation was found in 83,3% in the right LLDN compared to 95,5% (p>0.05). There were no delayed graft function and post-operative hemodialysis within one week in the recipients of right LLDN group. Conclusion: Right LLDN has equal operative results and outcomes compared to left LLDN. Right-sided LLDN may be a judicious approach for donors with unfavorable characteristics of the left kidney.
Ratner LE, Ciseck LJ, Moore RG, Cigarroa FG, Kaufman HS, Kavoussi LR. Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. Transplantation. 1995; 60(9): 1047-9.
Mochtar CA, Wahyudi I, Rasyid N, Rodjani A, Birowo P, Atmoko W, et al. Laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy: feasibility and first experience in Indonesia. Indonesian Journal of Urology. 2012; 19(2): 49-55.
Hawasli A, Berri R, Meguid A, Le K, Oh H. Total laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: a 6-year experience. Am J Surg. 2006; 191: 325-9.
Ratner LE, Kavoussi LR, Schulam PG, Bender JS, Magnuson TH, Montgomery R. Comparison of laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy versus the standard open approach. Transplant Proc. 1997; 29: 138-9.
Altinel M, Akinci S, Gunes ZE, Olcucuoglu E, Gonenc F, Yazicioglu AH. Open versus laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: perioperative parameters and graft functions. Transplant Proc. 2011; 43(3): 781-6.
Waller JR, Hiley AL, Mullin EJ, Veitch PS, Nicholson ML. Living kidney donation: a comparison of laparoscopic and conventional open operations. Postgrad Med J. 2002; 78: 153-7.
Dolce CJ, Keller JE, Walters KC, Griffin D, Norton HJ, Heniford BT, et al. Laparoscopic versus open live donor nephrectomy: outcomes analysis of 266 consecutive patients. Surg Endosc. 2009; 23: 1564-8.
Simforoosh N, Basiri A, Tabibi A, Shakhssalim N, MM S, Moghddam H. Comparison of laparoscopic and open donor nephrectomy: a randomized controlled trial. BJU Int. 2005; 95(6): 851-5.
Hsu JW, Reese PP, Naji A, Levine MH, Abt PL. Increased early graft failure in right-sided living donor nephrectomy. Transplantation. 2011; 91: 108-14.
Mandal AK, Cohen C, Montgomery RA, Kavoussi LR, Ratner LE. Should the indications for laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy of the right kidney be the same as for the open procedure? Anomalous left renal vasculature is not a contraindication to laparoscopic left donor nephrectomy. Transplantation. 2001; 71.
Dols LFC, Kok NFM, Alwayn IPJ, Tran TCK, Weimar W, Ijzermans JNM. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a Plea for the right-sided approach. Transplantation. 2009; 87: 745-50.
Lind MY, Hazebroek EJ, Hop WCJ, Weimar W, Bonjer HJ, Ijzermans JNM. Right-sided laparoscopic live-donor nephrectomy: is reluctance still justified? Transplantation. 2002; 74: 1045-61.
Kay MD, Brook N, Kaushik M, Harper SJF, Bagul A, Nicholson ML. Comparison of right and left laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. BJU Int. 2006; 98: 843-4.
Hoda MR, Greco F, Wagner S, Heynemann H, Fomara P. Prospective, nonrandomized comparison between right- and left-sided hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Transplant Proc. 2011; 43: 353-6.
Husted TL, Hanaway MJ, Thomas MJ, Woodle ES, Buell JF. Laparoscopic right living donor nephrectomy. Transplant Proc. 2005; 37: 631-2.