Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Indian J Radiol Imaging 2014; 24(04): 367-378
DOI: 10.4103/0971-3026.143899
Transplant Imaging

MDCT evaluation of potential living renal donor, prior to laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: What the transplant surgeon wants to know?

Nitin P Ghonge
Department of Radiology, Indraprastha Apollo Hospital, New Delhi, India
,
Satyabrat Gadanayak
Department of Urology, Indraprastha Apollo Hospital, New Delhi, India
,
Vijaya Rajakumari
Department of Renal Transplantation, Indraprastha Apollo Hospital, New Delhi, India
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
  PDF Download Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

As Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy (LDN) offers several advantages for the donor such as lesser post-operative pain, fewer cosmetic concerns and faster recovery time, there is growing global trend towards LDN as compared to open nephrectomy. Comprehensive pre-LDN donor evaluation includes assessment of renal morphology including pelvi-calyceal and vascular system. Apart from donor selection, evaluation of the regional anatomy allows precise surgical planning. Due to limited visualization during laparoscopic renal harvesting, detailed pre-transplant evaluation of regional anatomy, including the renal venous anatomy is of utmost importance. MDCT is the modality of choice for pre-LDN evaluation of potential renal donors. Apart from appropriate scan protocol and post-processing methods, detailed understanding of surgical techniques is essential for the Radiologist for accurate image interpretation during pre-LDN MDCT evaluation of potential renal donors. This review article describes MDCT evaluation of potential living renal donor, prior to LDN with emphasis on scan protocol, post-processing methods and image interpretation. The article laid special emphasis on surgical perspectives of pre-LDN MDCT evaluation and addresses important points which transplant surgeons want to know.

Keywords

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy - living renal donor - MDCT evaluation


Publication History

Article published online:
02 August 2021

© 2014. Indian Radiological Association. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Wolfe RA, Ashby VB, Milford EL, Ojo AO, Ettenger RE, Agodoa LY, 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;341:1725-30.
  • 2 Brunkhorst R, Lufft V, Dannenberg B, Kliem V, Tusch G, Pichlmayr R. Improved survival in patients with type 1 diabetes Mellitus after renal transplantation compared with hemodialysis: A case-control study. Transplantation 2003;76:115-9.
  • 3 Hariharan S, Johnson CP, Bresnahan BA, Taranto SE, McIntosh MJ, Stablein D. Improved graft survival after renal transplantation in the United States, 1988 to 1996. N Engl J Med 2000;342:605-12.
  • 4 Meier-Kriesche HU, Port FK, Ojo AO, Rudich SM, Hanson JA, Cibrik DM, et al. Effect of waiting time on renal transplant outcome. Kidney Int 2000;58:1311-7.
  • 5 Data from US Renal Data System. USRD 2003 Annual Data Report: Atlas of End Stage Renal Disease in the United States. Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 2003.
  • 6 Koo DD, Welsh KI, McLaren AJ, Roake JA, Morris PJ, Fuggle SV. Cadaver versus living donor kidneys: Impact of donor factors on antigen induction before transplantation. Kidney Int 1999;56:1551-9.
  • 7 Lowell JA, Brennan DC, Shenoy S, Hagerty D, Miller S, Ceriotti C, et al. Living-unrelated renal transplantation provides comparable results to living-related renal transplantation: A 12-year single-center experience. Surgery 1996;119:538-43.
  • 8 Truog RD. The ethics of organ donation by living donors. N Engl J Med 2005;353:444-6.
  • 9 Price D. Living kidney donation in Europe: Legal and ethical perspectives--the EUROTOLD Project. Transpl Int 1994;7 (Suppl 1) :S665-7.
  • 10 Davis CL, Delmonico FL. Living-donor kidney transplantation: A review of the current practices for the live donor. J Am Soc Nephrol 2005;16:2098-110.
  • 11 Ratner LE, Ciseck L, Moore RG, Cigarroa FG, Kaufman HS, Kavoussi LR. Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. Transplantation 1995;60:1047-9.
  • 12 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.
  • 13 Jacobs SC, Cho E, Foster C, Liao P, Bartlett ST. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: The University of Maryland 6-year experience. J Urol 2004;171:47-51.
  • 14 Simon SD, Castle EP, Ferrigni RG, Lamm DL, Swanson SK, Novicki DE, et al. Complications of laparoscopic nephrectomy: The Mayo Clinic experience. J Urol 2004;171:1447-50.
  • 15 El-Galley R, Hood N, Young CJ, Deierhoi MH, Urgan DA. Donor nephrectomy: A comparison of techniques and results of open, hand assisted and full laparoscopic nephrectomy. J Urol 2004;171:40-3.
  • 16 Kok NM, Lind MY, Hansson B, Pilzecker D, Mertens zur Borg IR, Knipscheer BC, et al. Comparison of laparoscopic and mini incision open donor nephrectomy: Single blind, randomised controlled clinical trial. BMJ 2006;333:221.
  • 17 Ethics Committee of the Transplantation Society. The consensus statement of the Amsterdam Forum on the care of the live kidney donor. Transplantation 2004;78:491-2.
  • 18 Delmonico F; Council of the Transplantation Society. A report of the Amsterdam forum on the care of the live kidney donor: Data and medical guidelines. Transplantation 2005;79 (Suppl 6) :S53-66.
  • 19 Rydberg J, Kopecky KK, Tann M, Persohn SA, Leapman SB, Filo RS, et al. Evaluation of prospective living renal donors for laparoscopic nephrectomy with multisection CT: The marriage of minimally invasive imaging with minimally invasive surgery. Radiographics 2001;21spec No: S223-36.
  • 20 Sebastià C, Peri L, Salvador R, Buñesch L, Revuelta I, Alcaraz A, et al. Multi-detector CT of living renal donors: Lessons learned from surgeons. Radiographics 2010;30:1875-90.
  • 21 Kapoor A, Kapoor A, Majajan G, Singh A, Sarin P. Multispiral computed tomographic angiography of renal arteries of live potential renal donors: A review of 118 cases. Transplantation 2004;77:1535-9.
  • 22 Chai JW, Lee W, Yin YH, Jae HJ, Chung JW, Kim HH, et al. CT angiography for living kidney donors: Accuracy, cause of misinterpretation and prevalence of variation. Korean J Radiol 2008;9:333-9.
  • 23 Holden A, Smith A, Dukes P, Pilmore H, Yasutomi M. Assessment of 100 live potential renal donors for laparoscopic nephrectomy with multi-detector row helical CT. Radiology 2005;237:973-80.
  • 24 Kawamoto S, Montgomery RA, Lawler LP, Horton KM, Fishman EK. Multi-detector CT angiography for preoperative evaluation of living laparoscopic kidney donors. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;180:1633-8.
  • 25 Jha RC, Korangy SJ, Ascher SM, Takahama J, Kuo PC, Johnson LB. MR angiography and preoperative evaluation for laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;178:1489-95.
  • 26 Bhatti AA, Chugtai A, Haslam P, Talbot D, Rix DA, Soomro NA. 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.
  • 27 Toki K, Takahara S, Kokado Y, Ichimaru N, Wang J, Tsuda K, et al. Comparison of CT angiography with MR angiography in the living renal donor. Transplant Proc 1998;30:2998-3000.
  • 28 Zamboni GA, Romero JY, Raptopoulos VD. Combined vascular-excretory phase MDCT angiography in the preoperative evaluation of renal donors. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;194:145-50.
  • 29 Chow LC, Kwan SW, Olcott EW, Sommer G. Split-bolus MDCT urography with synchronous nephrographic and excretory phase enhancement. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;189:314-22.
  • 30 Sahani DV, Kalva SP, Hahn PF, Saini S. 16-MDCT angiography in living kidney donors at various tube potentials: Impact on image quality and radiation dose. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;188:115-20.
  • 31 Calhoun PS, Kuszyk BS, Heath DG, Carley JC, Fishman EK. Three-dimensional volume rendering of spiral CT data: Theory and method. Radiographics1999;19:745-64.
  • 32 Fishman EK, Ney DR, Heath DG, Corl FM, Horton KM, Johnson PT. Volume rendering versus maximum intensity projection in CT angiography: What works best, when, and why? Radiographics 2006;26:905-22.
  • 33 Kumar A, Das SK, Srivastava A. Expanding the living related donor pool in renal transplantation: Use of marginal donors. Transplant Proc 2003;35:28-9.
  • 34 Satyapal KS, Haffejee AA, Singh B, Ramsaroop L, Robbs JV, Kalideen JM. Additional renal arteries: Incidence and morphometry. Surg Radiol Anat 2001;23:33-8.
  • 35 Lorenz EC, Vrtiska TJ, Lieske JC, Dillon JJ, Stegall MD, Li X, et al. Prevalence of renal artery and kidney abnormalities by computed tomography among healthy adults. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2010;5:431-8.
  • 36 Pozniak MA, Balison DJ, Lee FT Jr, Tambeaux RH, Uehling DT, Moon TD. CT angiography of potential renal transplant donors. Radiographics 1998;18:565-87.
  • 37 Kawamoto S, Fishman EK. MDCT angiography of living laparoscopic renal donors. Abdom Imaging 2006;31:361-73.
  • 38 Greco F, Hoda MR, Alcaraz A, Bachmann A, Hakenberg OW, Fornara P. Laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy: Analysis of the existing literature. Eur Urol 2010;58:498-509.
  • 39 Arvind NK, Kumar A. Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: An Indian perspective. Indian J Urol 2002;19:29-37.
  • 40 Dunkin BJ, Johnson LB, Kuo PC. A technical modification eliminates early ureteral complications after laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. J Am Coll Surg 2000;190:96-7.
  • 41 Anderson KM, Lindler TU, Lamberton GR, Baron PW, Ojogho OK, Baldwin DD. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: Effect of perirenal fat upon donor operative time. J Endourol 2008;22:2269-74.
  • 42 Ghonge NP, Ghonge SD. Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of pelvic peritoneal adhesions: What radiologists need to know? Indian J Radiol Imaging 2014;24:149-55.