Case series demonstrates immediate graft function with banked deceased-donor iliac vein extension in right living-donor kidney recipients, indicating a viable strategy for short renal veins.
Background: The right renal vein is about half the length of the right renal artery and is shortened further by endovascular stapling at laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Right-sided living-donor grafts carry roughly twice the adjusted risk of delayed graft function and of early graft loss, a penalty absent from deceased donation, where the inferior vena cava accompanies the graft. The deficit is one of venous length, not of the organ; extension is the remedy, and no guideline specifies how the conduit should be obtained. Methods and cases: Three consecutive recipients of right living-donor kidneys had the renal vein extended with a deceased-donor iliac vein. Conduits were recovered at multiorgan retrieval from ABO-identical or ABO-compatible donors, immersed in University of Wisconsin solution at 4 °C, and used within seven days; elective right donor nephrectomy was booked to follow a suitable retrieval within that window. Extension was an end-to-end back-table anastomosis with continuous 5-0 or 6-0 polypropylene, converting a short-vein implantation into a routine end-to-side anastomosis to the external iliac vein. All three grafts functioned immediately, without venous thrombosis, technical graft loss, or delayed graft function; the last serum creatinine was 0.91, 1.22, and 1.42 mg/dL. Conclusions. A calibre- and ABO-matched deceased-donor iliac vein, held in University of Wisconsin solution at 4 °C and used within seven days, makes venous extension a scheduled step of an elective right living-donor operation and requires no cryopreservation infrastructure. Where a donor’s safety mandates right nephrectomy, a short right renal vein need not preclude donation. Three cases establish feasibility; the low thrombotic risk of venous extension rests on published series rather than on this report.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hoffman et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: