AJR ARRS Member Benefits
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Raman, S. S.
Right arrow Articles by Lu, D. S. K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Raman, S. S.
Right arrow Articles by Lu, D. S. K.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
DOI:10.2214/AJR.05.0983
AJR 2006; 186:1630-1638
© American Roentgen Ray Society


Original Research

Utility of 16-MDCT Angiography for Comprehensive Preoperative Vascular Evaluation of Laparoscopic Renal Donors

Steven S. Raman1, Suwalee Pojchamarnwiputh1,2, Kobkun Muangsomboon1,3, Peter G. Schulam4, H. Albin Gritsch4 and David S. K. Lu1

1 Department of Radiology, David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California at Los Angeles, BL-428 CHS/Box 951721, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1721.
4 Department of Urology, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA.

Received June 8, 2005; accepted after revision August 12, 2005.

 
Address correspondence to S. Raman (sraman{at}mednet.ucla.edu).

2 Present address: Department of Radiology, Chang Mai University, Chang Mai, 50200 Thailand.

3 Present address: Department of Radiology, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, 10700 Thailand.


Abstract
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
 
OBJECTIVE. Our objective was to determine the efficacy of 16-MDCT angiography in preoperative evaluation of vascular anatomy of laparoscopic renal donors.

METHODS AND MATERIALS. Fifty-five consecutive renal donors (25 men and 30 women) underwent 16-MDCT angiography followed by donor nephrectomy. In the arterial and nephrographic phases, images were acquired with 60% overlap and 0.6-mm reconstruction in both phases after 120 mL of iohexol was injected at 4 mL/sec. On a 3D workstation, images were evaluated retrospectively by two abdominal imagers blinded to surgical results with respect to number and branching pattern of renal arteries and major and minor renal veins. These CT angiography results were compared with surgical findings.

RESULTS. The surgically confirmed sensitivity of both reviewers (1 and 2) using the MDCT data for detection of renal arteries was 98.5% (65 of 66), and accuracies were 97.0% for reviewer 1 and 95.5% for reviewer 2. Sensitivity and accuracy detection of renal veins was 97% (61 of 63) and 98% (62 of 63) for reviewer 1 and reviewer 2, respectively. Sensitivity and accuracy detection of early arterial bifurcation (< 2 cm from aorta) was 100% (14 of 14), and sensitivity in detection of late venous confluence (< 1.5 cm from aorta) was 100% (8 of 8). All major renal venous variants were identified; reviewer 1 identified 78% (18 of 23) minor venous variants, and reviewer 2 identified 83% (19 of 23) minor venous variants. There were no hemorrhagic complications at surgery. Excellent agreement between reviewers (kappa = 0.92-0.97) was achieved for detection of normal and variant anatomy.

CONCLUSION. 16-MDCT angiography enabled excellent preoperative detection of arterial anatomy and venous laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.

Keywords: angiography • CT • CT imaging • MDCT • kidney • renal transplantation


Introduction
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
 
Since its introduction in 1995, laparoscopic nephrectomy in living renal donors has emerged as a preferred alternative to open nephrectomy. Compared with open nephrectomy, the laparoscopic procedure offers advantages for the donor, including less morbidity, less postoperative pain, less convalescence time, and improved cosmesis [1-9]. However, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is technically challenging in part because of the limited surgical field of view compared with open surgery. Accurate preoperative imaging of renal donor anatomy is critical in triaging potential laparoscopic living donors and for anticipating vascular anomalies or variants. Preoperative knowledge of donor renal vascular anatomy and variants helps minimize risk of bleeding to the donor and vascular injury to the renal graft.

In preoperative planning, helical CT angiography (CTA) initially supplanted catheter angiography with reasonably good accuracy in depiction of healthy and variant renal donor anatomy, primarily in the context of open nephrectomy [10-18]. Several more-recent studies that evaluate the utility of 4-MDCT angiography report similar results with respect to arterial anatomy [19-25].

However, in laparoscopically performed donor nephrectomy, venous variants relevant to the presence and insertion of prominent lumbar and/or gonadal veins (minor variants) may result in inadvertent avulsion of these sometimes confusing vessels and lead to unanticipated hemorrhage in the laparoscopic field. Therefore, our surgeons believe that preoperative CT knowledge of major and minor venous variants helps them anticipate potentially confusing venous anastomoses and facilitates laparoscopic nephrectomy. By themselves, these venous variants generally do not preclude donation. The ability of CTA to help detect these venous variants has not been studied extensively. In prior studies using 4-MDCT angiography, sensitivity for detection of these variants varied between 75% using a standard open donor nephrectomy [21] and 92% using a laparoscopic nephrectomy procedure [22]. Recently, Sahani et al. [23] reported the sensitivity and specificity of 4-MDCT were 75% and 100%, respectively, for the identification of variant anatomy of renal veins. However, only major venous variants were evaluated.


Figure 1
View larger version (102K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 1A —30-year-old woman who underwent left laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Coronal volume-rendered (VR) image show left aberrant renal venous branch (black arrow) connecting with large gonadal vein (white arrow). Black arrowhead (B) shows left main renal vein. Three right renal arteries are seen in A.

 


Figure 2
View larger version (113K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 1B —30-year-old woman who underwent left laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. coronal oblique VR image show left aberrant renal venous branch (black arrow) connecting with large gonadal vein (white arrow). Black arrowhead (B) shows left main renal vein. Three right renal arteries are seen in A.

 


Figure 3
View larger version (104K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 1C —30-year-old woman who underwent left laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Axial oblique volume-rendered image shows large lumbar vein (white arrowhead) connecting with left main renal vein (black arrowhead).

 
16-MDCT enables acquisition with 0.6-0.75-mm sections and significantly faster image acquisition times with near isotropic data acquisition in multiple vascular phases. Overall, this technology enables improved spatial and temporal resolution while decreasing motion and improving partial voluming artifacts and radiation dose efficiency. Theoretically, this should enable improved interpreter performance for detection of surgically relevant anatomy. To our knowledge, no study has evaluated the performance of 16-MDCT data sets compared to laparoscopic surgery in detection of renal vascular anatomy and variants.

This study evaluates the diagnostic performance of two experienced, blinded interpreters, using 2D and 3D data from 16-MDCT angiography, in preoperative detection of arterial and venous anatomy and variants of renal donors undergoing laparoscopic nephrectomy.


Materials and Methods
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
 
Study Subjects
This study was reviewed by our institutional review board and was granted an exemption because of its retrospective nature. From June 2003 to July 2004, 55 consecutive living renal donors (25 men and 30 women; age range, 18-69 years; mean age ± SD, 42.5 ± 13.8 years) underwent preoperative 16-MDCT angiography and urographic examinations before laparoscopic nephrectomy. Among them, 52 underwent a left laparoscopic nephrectomy, one underwent a right laparoscopic nephrectomy, and two underwent attempted right laparoscopic nephrectomy followed by open nephrectomy. In the latter three patients, the right kidneys were chosen for transplantation because of the presence of cysts and calcifications, which were detected on CT. This was in keeping with a general principle of all living donor nephrectomies that the perceived "better kidney" remain with the donor [26]. If both kidneys were free of these abnormalities, then, on the basis of CT findings, the kidney with the less complex renal vascular anatomy was chosen for harvest. All the recipient patients were enrolled in a renal transplantation program in our institution.

CT Protocol
All CTA studies were performed on a 16-MDCT scanner (Somatom Sensation 16, Siemens Medical Solutions). As part of our CT protocol, unenhanced and IV contrast-enhanced multiphasic scans (arterial, nephrographic, and excretory phases) were acquired. After fasting for at least 3 hr, each donor ingested 500 mL of water over 15-20 min before the scan in an attempt to improve hydration for the excretory phase. Unenhanced CT scans were obtained with 5-mm collimation to locate the kidneys, detect renal calculi, and use as the baseline attenuation measurement of renal mass. After unenhanced CT scans, 100-150 mL of nonionic IV iohexol (350 mg of iodine/mL) (Omnipaque 350, GE Healthcare) was injected into an antecubital vein through an 18-gauge peripheral IV line using a power injector at a rate of 4.0 mL/sec. The estimated dose-to-weight amounts were 100 mL/< 100 lb (45.4 kg) (35 g iodine), 125 mL/100-200 lb (45.4-90.7 kg) (43.8 g iodine), 150 mL/> 200 lb (90.7 kg) (53.5 g iodine). The arterial phase scans were initiated using an automatic bolus-tracking program (CARE Dose, Siemens Medical Solutions). A region of interest was placed in the abdominal aorta just above the kidneys. Scanning was triggered 5 sec after a threshold of 150 H in the region of interest was reached. Volumetric scans were acquired from the level of the celiac axis to the common iliac artery bifurcation using the following parameters: 120 kVp, 200-240 mAs, 12-mm table speed, 0.5-sec rotation speed, 0.75-mm collimation, and reconstruction with 60% overlap. Nephrographic phase images were then acquired 85 sec after the arterial phase covering the same area described with similar parameters. For both the arterial phase and the nephrographic phase, the images were reconstructed at 0.75-mm thickness with a 0.6-mm interval using a standard body filter without edge enhancement.

After IV injection of 250 mL of 0.9% saline, excretory phase images were acquired 5 min after the nephrographic phase and extended from above the kidneys to the bladder base using similar parameters as described in the previous paragraph.

Image Processing and Analysis
Two experienced abdominal imagers (reviewer 1, 10 years; reviewer 2, 7 years), who had been trained for preoperative evaluation of a living laparoscopic kidney, reviewed all images from 16-MDCT angiography images at an independent workstation with 3D capability (Vitrea 2, Vital Images). The reviewers had no knowledge of the dictated CT report or laparoscopic surgical result. For each CT examination, the reviewers used axial images, supplemented by 2D and 3D postprocessing techniques including multiplanar reformations, maximum intensity projections, and volume rendering according to individual preferences. The reviewers edited CT volume data sets to create 3D CTA images in real time at frame rates of 10-30 frames/sec. Each reviewer subjectively adjusted 3D display parameters, including width, level, opacity, and brightness.

Renal arterial anatomy was evaluated on the arterial phase images, whereas venous anatomy was evaluated in the arterial phase, supplemented by images in the nephrographic phase, especially for assessment of accessory draining renal veins including lumbar and gonadal veins, which some-times enhanced later.

Each reviewer assessed the number and size of arteries, presence of early branching arteries, and presence of accessory or capsular arteries. Surgically relevant renal arteries were those generally greater than 4 mm in diameter. Vessels 0.5-3 mm in diameter may be sacrificed at surgery if they are deemed by the surgeon to supply a small clinically insignificant capsular or polar vascular territory when clamped (with resulting blanching of renal surface). An early branching renal artery was diagnosed when any branch diverged within 2.0 cm from the lateral wall of the aorta (left kidney) or in the retrocaval segment (right kidney). Reviewers also assessed the number of main renal veins and their anastomotic pattern.

Venous anomalies were classified as major or minor. Major anomalies were those that resulted in altered surgical management, including venous anastomoses in the recipient. Major renal venous anomalies included the supernumerary renal veins and the presence of a late venous confluence. At our institution, a late venous confluence was diagnosed when renal venous branches coalescing within 1.5 cm from the left lateral margin of the aorta (left kidney) or within 1.5 cm of the anastomosis with inferior vena cava (IVC) (right kidney). Major left-sided renal venous anomalies also included circumaortic or retroaortic renal veins and left-sided or duplicated IVC. Minor venous anomalies were either anticipated or unanticipated and recognized at laparoscopy. Minor renal venous anomalies included the presence of draining gonadal and lumbar veins (especially those 5 mm in diameter) and drainage of any associated renal tributaries into these veins (Fig. 1A, 1B and 1C). These variants did not generally involve additional postharvest anastomoses and were ligated laparoscopically.

The results from retrospective review for each reviewer were compared with the dictated surgical report and surgical assessment for the laparoscopically resected kidney. Thus only one kidney per patient was evaluated because surgical correlation was available.

A consensus review was also performed to resolve any discrepancies between interpretations on CTA and surgical findings.

Surgical Correlation
Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy was performed in 53 donors, 52 with left renal harvest and one with right renal harvest. In two donors, a right donor nephrectomy was performed using an open extraperitoneal approach after the laparoscopic approach was deemed unfeasible. Surgery was performed between 2 weeks to 11 months (median, 4 months) after the CTA and CT urography examination. For each patient, the transplant surgeons recorded a surgical result including the number of arteries, the presence of early branching arteries, the number of renal veins, the presence of late confluence within veins, and the presence of major or minor renal vein anomalies. Because of the limited field of view of surgery, not all minor renal venous anomalies could be evaluated or recognized laparoscopically in each patient. For this study, these were listed as false-positives because laparoscopy was deemed to be the gold standard. However, minor renal venous variants needing surgical attention were recorded.

Data Analysis
Considering surgical findings as the standard, we evaluated sensitivity and accuracy for the number of main and accessory renal arteries and veins, the number of renal arteries with early branching and number of renal veins with late confluence, and the presence of major venous anomalies. For minor venous anomalies, we evaluated only the sensitivity in correlation to surgical results. These analyses were based on each reviewer's evaluation. Interobserver agreement between two reviewers was assessed from the data of independent reviews using kappa statistics.


Figure 4
View larger version (101K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 2A —52-year-old man who underwent left laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Coronal maximum intensity projection images show a 1-mm accessory renal artery (arrow), which was missed by both reviewers.

 


Figure 5
View larger version (117K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 2B —52-year-old man who underwent left laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. axial maximum intensity projection images show a 1-mm accessory renal artery (arrow), which was missed by both reviewers.

 

Results
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
 
The 16-MDCT angiographic images were evaluated as technically good in 54 donors and technically satisfactory in one donor where the arterial phase was slightly delayed because of scanner malfunction. However, in this case, the renal artery and vein could be identified. The renal arteries and veins were adequately enhanced on arterial phase images in all patients. Renal arteries were differentiated from renal veins by their respective anatomic connections, which were readily apparent by scrolling through the axial data set; the 2D and 3D reformations; and their generally stronger enhancement than the veins.

Renal Arteries
At surgery, a total of 66 renal arteries were identified in 55 donor kidneys. In 45 donor kidneys, one renal artery was identified; in nine donor kidneys, two arteries were identified; and in one donor kidney, three arteries were identified (Table 1). Both reviewers agreed on the number of renal arteries in 54 (98%) of 55 harvested kidneys, and interobserver agreement was excellent (kappa = 0.94). Overall, both reviewers detected 65 of 66 surgically identified arteries (sensitivity: 98.5%). Overall accuracy for renal artery detection was 97% (reviewer 1) and 95.5% (reviewer 2). The false-negative was a missed accessory artery, which was a 2-mm vessel that was laparoscopically transected without complication (Fig. 2A and 2B). Reviewer 1 had one false-positive and reviewer 2 had two false-positive diagnoses. The false-positive cases had capsular arteries of 1 mm or less in diameter not reported at surgery. One case was a small retroperitoneal artery, which was misinterpreted by reviewer 2 as a capsular artery (Fig. 3A and 3B).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
TABLE 1: Agreement Between CT Angiographic and Surgical Findings for the Number of Renal Arteries of Each Kidney

 

Figure 6
View larger version (108K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 3A —25-year-old man who underwent left laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Oblique coronal volume-rendered images show small peritoneal artery (arrows) adjacent to renal cortex. Reviewer 2 misinterpreted this vessel as an accessory renal artery (capsular artery).

 

Figure 7
View larger version (101K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 3B —25-year-old man who underwent left laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. axial volume-rendered images show small peritoneal artery (arrows) adjacent to renal cortex. Reviewer 2 misinterpreted this vessel as an accessory renal artery (capsular artery).

 

At surgery, early branching was found in 14 (21%) of 66 renal arteries. In 6 of the 14, two anastomoses were created in the recipients, and all had early bifurcation of less than 1.5 cm from the aorta on 16-MDCT angiography. In 8 of the 14, a single anastomosis was created in the recipients, and all had early bifurcation of between 1.1 cm and 2 cm on pre-operative 16-MDCT angiography (Table 2).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
TABLE 2: Agreement Between CT Angiographic and Surgical Findings for the Early Branch of 63 Renal Arteries

 


Figure 8
View larger version (116K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 4A —38-year-old woman who underwent left laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Oblique coronal volume-rendered images show single left renal artery with very early branches as two capsular arteries (arrow), but surgical recorded left renal artery and two capsular arteries. Because of limitation of laparoscopic surgical field, surgeons could not dissect medially to identify common origin of capsular arteries, which arose from main left renal artery, 5 mm from aorta.

 

Figure 9
View larger version (111K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 4B —38-year-old woman who underwent left laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Oblique coronal volume-rendered images show single left renal artery with very early branches as two capsular arteries (arrow), but surgical recorded left renal artery and two capsular arteries. Because of limitation of laparoscopic surgical field, surgeons could not dissect medially to identify common origin of capsular arteries, which arose from main left renal artery, 5 mm from aorta.

 
Both reviewers performed well (Table 3) in detecting early bifurcation. There were no false-negative diagnoses. Both reviewers had one false-positive diagnosis of early arterial bifurcation. In this patient, who had three surgically described arteries, both reviewers detected a single main renal artery with a very early branch to a common origin of two capsular branches, 0.5 mm and 1.4 mm in caliber, at 0.3 cm from the origin (Fig. 4A and 4B). At laparoscopic harvest, one main renal artery and capsular arterial branches were described but the origins of the capsular branches were not recorded. Both capsular arterial branches were sacrificed, and a single arterial anastomosis was performed in the recipient. The kappa value of both reviewers for early bifurcation of renal arteries was 0.96.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
TABLE 3: Sensitivity, Specificity, and Accuracy of CT Angiographic Findings of Both Reviewers Compared to Surgical Findings for Early Branch of Renal Arteries

 

Renal Vein Anomalies
In 55 kidneys, a total of 63 veins were detected at surgery. Eight supernumerary renal veins were detected at surgery, including five retroaortic components of circumaortic left renal veins and three accessory right renal veins (one right kidney had three renal veins and another had two renal veins). Both reviewers agreed on the number of major renal veins and venous anomalies in all 55 kidneys with excellent interobserver agreement (kappa = 0.9). The sensitivity and accuracy for detection of renal veins were 98.4% (62 of 63 for reviewer 1) and 97% (61 of 63 for reviewer 2), respectively. Major renal venous anomalies, including one case of duplicated IVC and two cases of retroaortic left renal vein, were all detected preoperatively by both reviewers. All three accessory renal veins were detected preoperatively. Both reviewers detected a less than 0.5-cm retroaortic vein component of three circumaortic left renal veins, mischaracterizing the branches as a single main renal vein with a draining small lumbar vein (Fig. 5A, 5B and 5C). In all three cases, the small retroaortic vein branch was safely transected at surgery and a single venous anastomosis was performed in the recipient.


Figure 10
View larger version (125K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 5A —Retroaortic renal veins in two patients who underwent left laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. 41-year-old man for whom coronal maximum intensity projection images show small retroaortic renal vein (arrow), which was missed by one reviewer.

 

Figure 11
View larger version (129K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 5B —Retroaortic renal veins in two patients who underwent left laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. 41-year-old man for whom coronal maximum intensity projection images show small retroaortic renal vein (arrow), which was missed by one reviewer.

 

Figure 12
View larger version (116K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 5C —Retroaortic renal veins in two patients who underwent left laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. 58-year-old woman for whom oblique coronal volume-rendered image shows two retroaortic left renal veins (arrows). One reviewer mischaracterized one of two retroaortic veins as draining lumbar vein.

 
A late venous confluence was detected at surgery in 8 of 8 patients (100% sensitivity) for both reviewers. In all eight patients, a single venous anastomosis was performed in the recipients.

Minor renal venous anomalies were those relating to the lumbar-gonadal axis. Surgically or radiologically described gonadal or lumbar veins were not seen in three of three right donor kidneys. On 16-MDCT angiography, both reviewers detected at least one gonadal vein in 45 kidneys (kappa, 0.71) and a draining lumbar vein in 36 kidneys (reviewer 1) and 38 kidneys (reviewer 2) (kappa, 0.92).

Twenty three minor left-sided venous anomalies were detected in 18 left kidneys at surgery including prominent (> 5 mm) lumbar veins draining into the main renal vein (11 patients), dual gonadal veins draining into a single main renal vein (three patients), prominent (> 5 mm) gonadal veins draining into left renal vein (two patients), and accessory renal veins draining into the lumbar-gonadal vein complex (seven patients). On 16-MDCT angiography, reviewer 1 detected in 19 of 23 (sensitivity, 83%) and reviewer 2 detected in 18 of 23 (sensitivity, 78%) minor venous anomalies. One accessory renal vein draining into the lumbar-gonadal complex was missed by both reviewers (Fig. 6A and 6B). Each reviewer missed two accessory renal veins individually. Both reviewers missed one case of a small vein connecting the gonadal vein with the inferior renal venous branch (Fig. 7). Reviewer 2 missed one case of a prominent (> 5 mm) lumbar vein draining into the renal vein. In this case, the donor was thin and the CT examination was performed in the late nephrographic phase because of scanner malfunction.


Figure 13
View larger version (132K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 6A —61-year-old woman who underwent left laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Oblique coronal volume-rendered images show small aberrant renal venous branch (white arrows), which connects renal hilar parenchyma with left gonadal vein (black arrow, B). Neither reviewer described this branch.

 

Figure 14
View larger version (100K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 6B —61-year-old woman who underwent left laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Oblique coronal volume-rendered images show small aberrant renal venous branch (white arrows), which connects renal hilar parenchyma with left gonadal vein (black arrow, B). Neither reviewer described this branch.

 

Figure 15
View larger version (107K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 7 —54-year-old woman who underwent left laparoscopic donor nephrectomy for whom oblique coronal volume-rendered image shows small venous branch (white arrow), which connects left gonadal vein (black arrow) with inferior renal venous branch (arrowhead). Neither reviewer detected this small accessory vein.

 

Surgical Morbidity in Donors
All 55 living renal donors successfully underwent nephrectomy without complication. Minimal blood loss was described in surgical reports in all patients including the two donors who underwent open nephrectomy.


Discussion
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
 
Since its description in 1995, laparoscopic nephrectomy has become the preferred method of harvesting a kidney for transplantation [3-10]. Like many laparoscopic procedures, patient demand has been a major factor in its adoption [1-7]. However, the laparoscopic approach has a significant learning curve and demands more rigorous preoperative imaging-based planning because the field of view is limited and unanticipated bleeding is more difficult to control [14].

The left kidney is preferred for laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy because resection is easier than on the right. Also, transplantation of the donor kidney is facilitated by the longer artery and vein in the left kidney and less potential exists for vascular complications and eventual graft loss [27]. However, the reported incidence of renal venous anomalies and intrarenal collateral venous drainage from the renal-lumbar-azy-gos-vertebral axis [10] is more frequent in the left kidney than the right. Recent studies show that the presence of multiple left renal arteries and major anomalies of the left renal vein, including circumaortic and retroaortic left renal veins, if detected on preoperative imaging may not necessarily preclude a laparoscopic resection or increase morbidity to the donor [27-30]. Thus our urologists regard precise prior knowledge of anatomy and variants in the vascular system and urinary tract to be essential before performing a laparoscopic nephrectomy.

Cross-sectional imaging primarily by CT replaced other methods of preoperative imaging in the 1990s, especially with regard to open nephrectomy [11-19]. However, up to 15% of small arteries were missed by single and 4-MDCT angiography [25]. Unanticipated bleeding from accidental transection of small vessels is more difficult to control during laparoscopic harvest, although they are usually not relevant for graft function. Only one study previously reported the performance of cross-sectional angiographic techniques using single-detector CT with respect to some venous anatomy and variants using an open nephrectomy standard [19].

In this study, we have showed that using a multiphasic 16-MDCT angiography protocol and 3D reviewing on a dedicated workstation, very high sensitivity and accuracy is possible preoperatively for a range of laparoscopically relevant renal arterial and venous variants. We showed excellent agreement between both blinded reviewers with each other (kappa = 0.97) and excellent sensitivity (98%) and accuracy (> 95%) in evaluation of the number of renal arteries. Only a 2-mm supernumerary renal artery was missed by both reviewers on blinded review, and it was transected safely during surgery without complication. Even with a subjective gold standard, we had excellent sensitivity for detection of early renal arterial branching, with sensitivity and accuracy of 100%, compared with previous reports of 86-100% and 95-98%, respectively [21, 22]. Unlike a surgically determined gold standard with regard to the number of renal arteries or veins, which tends to be more objective, early arterial branching tends to be subjective and varies among surgeons and institutions.

Our sensitivity and accuracy for detection of supernumerary veins and major venous anomalies approached 100%, similar to results achieved with arteries. These results compare favorably to previous studies with regard to accuracy and interobserver agreement (kappa = 0.9 vs kappa = 0.85) [21, 22]. Also, 16-MDCT angiography enabled excellent results for detecting renal venous branching patterns and the concept of late venous confluence. Although this result is subjective and varies among both institutions and surgeons (analogous to early arterial bifurcation), we achieved 100% sensitivity and accuracy for this finding. Also, the laparoscopic surgeons were able to create a single vein anastomosis without significant bleeding.

To our knowledge, detection and characterization of minor venous anomalies related to the confluence of the renal veins with both lumbar and gonadal veins have not been well characterized by imaging. The relationships among the renal, lumbar, and gonadal veins are variable. Accessory renal veins often anastomose to lumbar or gonadal veins before joining the main venous pedicle. One or more lumbar veins communicate with the left main renal vein posteriorly in approximately 43-75% of patients [21, 31-33]. Because the posterior aspect of the renal vein cannot usually be directly visualized during laparoscopic nephrectomy, this information may be important preoperatively. However, the need for preoperative detection and characterization of these anomalies varies institutionally. Using our 16-MDCT angiography protocol, we achieved sensitivities and accuracies of 78-83% in detection of these anomalies. These results reflect the difficulty of identifying some variants for a variety of reasons including their complexity and variability, our learning curve in detection, and optimizing CT protocols to maximize enhancement of these small vessels.

Our study has limitations that must be acknowledged. By design, the study is biased against complex variants and right-sided variants because these did not undergo laparoscopic nephrectomy. The surgical gold standard is variable between arteries and veins, especially when related to branching pattern and distance. Surgeons were unable to record an exact distance between the aorta and the first branch of the renal artery or the confluence of renal veins because of a limited field of view. Some minor venous anomalies detected on CTA were not proved because of the limited surgical field of view. Therefore, if these findings did not affect the laparoscopic nephrectomy or if the surgeons did not visualize these anomalies, they were not described in the surgical report and for the purposes of this study were recorded as a false-positive. This likely decreased the specificity and accuracy for detection of these lumbar and gonadal variants.

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is now an established but evolving technique with a steep learning curve for both surgeons and radiologists. However excellent preoperative imaging results are possible with a good MDCT angiography technique and with experienced reviewers, as we have shown in this study. We need to improve our understanding of variants in the lumbar-gonadal vein axis to improve our performance in characterizing these anomalies.

In conclusion, we have shown that 16-MDCT angiography combined with 3D-workstation reviewing provides excellent preoperative arterial and venous anatomic information for laparoscopic renal donor nephrectomy.


References
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
 

  1. Ratner LE, Ciseck LJ, Moore RG, Cigarroa FG, Kaufman HS, Kavoussi LR. Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. Transplantation 1995;60 : 1047-1049[Medline]
  2. Flowers JL, Jacobs S, Cho E, et al. Comparison of open and laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. Ann Surgery1997; 226:483 -490[CrossRef][Medline]
  3. Ratner LE, Kavoussi LR, Schulam PG, Bender JS, Magnuson TH, Montgomery R. Comparison of laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy versus the standard open approach. Transplant Proc1997; 29:138 -139[CrossRef][Medline]
  4. Ratner LE, Kavoussi LR, Sroka M, et al. Laparoscopic assisted live donor nephrectomy: a comparison with the open approach. Transplantation 1997;63 : 229-233[CrossRef][Medline]
  5. Fabrizio MD, Ratner LE, Kavoussi LR. Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: pro. Urology 1999;53 : 665-667[CrossRef][Medline]
  6. Ratner LE, Montgomery RA, Kavoussi LR. Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. A review of the first 5 years. Urol Clin North Am 2001; 28:709 -719[Medline]
  7. Hsu TH, Su LM, Ratner LE, Kavoussi LR. Renovascular complications of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Urology2002; 60:811 -815[Medline]
  8. Gritsch HA, Smith CV, Rajfer J, et al. Kidney transplantation at UCLA. Clin Transpl 2002;137 - 142
  9. Brook NR, Nicholson ML. An audit over 2 years' practice of open and laparoscopic live-donor nephrectomy at renal transplant centres in the UK and Ireland. BJU Int 2004;93 : 1027-1031[CrossRef][Medline]
  10. Satyapal KS. The renal veins: a review. Eur J Anat 2003; 7:43 -52
  11. Rubin GD, Alfrey EJ, Dake MD, et al. Assessment of living renal donors with spiral CT. Radiology 1995;195 : 457-462[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Cochran ST, Krasny RM, Danovitch GM, et al. Helical CT: angiography for examination of living renal donors. AJR1997; 168:1569 -1573[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Platt JF, Ellis JH, Korobkin M, Reige K. Helical CT: evaluation of potential kidney donors—findings in 154 subjects. AJR 1997; 169:1325 -330[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Pozniak MA, Balison DJ, Lee FT Jr, Tambeaux RH, Uehling DT, Moon TD. CT angiography of potential renal transplant donors. RadioGraphics 1998;18 : 565-587[Abstract]
  15. Del Pizzo JJ, Sklar GN, You-Cheong JW, Levin B, Krebs T, Jacobs SC. Helical computerized tomography arteriography for evaluation of live renal donors undergoing laparoscopic nephrectomy. J Urol 1999; 162:31-34
  16. Smith PA, Ratner LE, Lynch FC, Corl FM, Fishman EK. Role of CT angiography in the preoperative evaluation for laparoscopic nephrectomy. Radio-Graphics 1998;18 : 589-601[Abstract]
  17. Rydberg J, Kopecky KK, Tann M, 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;21 (special issue):S223 -S236[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Patil U, Ragavan A, Nadaraj, et al. Helical CT angiography in evaluation of liver kidney donors. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2001; 16:1900 -1904[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Scatarige JC, Horton KM, Ratner LE, Fishman EK. Left adrenal vein localization by 3D real-time volume-rendering CTA before laparoscopic nephrectomy in living renal donors. Abdom Imaging2001; 26:553 -556[CrossRef][Medline]
  20. Tran T, Heneghan JP, Paulson EK. Preoperative evaluation of potential renal donors using multidetector CT. Abdom Imaging 2002; 27:620 -625[CrossRef][Medline]
  21. Kim JK, Park SY, Kim HJ, et al. Living donor kidneys: usefulness of multi-detector row CT for comprehensive evaluation. Radiology 2003;229 : 869-876[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. Kawamoto S, Montgomery RA, Lawler LP, Horton KM, Fishman EK. Multidetector CT angiography for preoperative evaluation of living laparoscopic renal donors. AJR 2003;180 : 1633-1638[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. Sahani DV, Rastogi N, Greenfield AC, et al. Multi-detector row CT in evaluation of 94 living renal donors by readers with varied experience. Radiology 2005;235 : 905-910[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  24. Kawamoto S, Lawler LP, Fishman EK. Evaluation of the renal venous system on late arterial and venous phase images with MDCT angiography in potential living laparoscopic renal donors. AJR2005; 184:539 -545[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  25. Johnson JE, Loveday EJ, Archer LJ, et al. Preoperative evaluation of live renal donors using multislice CT angiography. Clin Radiol 2005; 60:771 -777[CrossRef][Medline]
  26. Kawamoto S, Montgomery RA, Lawler LP, Horton KM, Fishman EK. Multi-detector row CT evaluation of living renal donors prior to laparoscopic nephrectomy. RadioGraphics 2004;24 : 453-466[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Murray JE, Harrison JH. Surgical management of 50 patients with kidney transplant including 18 pairs of twins. Am J Surgery 1963; 105:205 -218[Medline]
  28. 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 : 660-664[Medline]
  29. Ratner LE, Smith P, Montgomery RA, Mandal AK, Fabrizio M, Kavoussi LR. Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: pre-operative assessment of technical difficulty. Clin Transplant 2000;14 : 427-432[CrossRef][Medline]
  30. Troppmann C, Wiesmann K, McVicar JP, Wolfe BM, Perez RV. Increased transplantation of kidneys with multiple renal arteries in the laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy era: surgical technique and surgical and nonsurgical donor and recipient outcomes. Arch Surgery2001; 136:897 -907[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  31. Lin H, Steinberg AP, Ramani AP, et al. Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy in the presence of circumaortic or retroaortic left renal vein. J Urol 2004; 171:44 -46[CrossRef][Medline]
  32. Hsu TH, Su LM, Ratner LE, Trock BJ, Kavoussi LR. Impact of renal artery multiplicity on outcomes of renal donors and recipients in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Urology 2003;61 : 323-327[Medline]
  33. Baniel J, Foster RS, Donohue JP. Surgical anatomy of the lumbar vessels: implications for retroperitoneal surgery. J Urol 1995; 153:1422 -1425[CrossRef][Medline]

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Postgrad. Med. J.Home page
J. Burrill, Z. Dabbagh, F. Gollub, and M. Hamady
Multidetector computed tomographic angiography of the cardiovascular system
Postgrad. Med. J., November 1, 2007; 83(985): 698 - 704.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
S. S. Raman, S. Pojchamarnwiputh, K. Muangsomboon, P. G. Schulam, H. A. Gritsch, and D. S. K. Lu
Surgically Relevant Normal and Variant Renal Parenchymal and Vascular Anatomy in Preoperative 16-MDCT Evaluation of Potential Laparoscopic Renal Donors
Am. J. Roentgenol., January 1, 2007; 188(1): 105 - 114.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Raman, S. S.
Right arrow Articles by Lu, D. S. K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Raman, S. S.
Right arrow Articles by Lu, D. S. K.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS