Anatomical Variants of the Renal Veins and Their Relationship with Morphofunctional Alterations of the Kidney: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prevalence
by
, ,
Juan Jose Valenzuela Fuenzalida
1,2,
Karla Vera-Tapia
1,
Camila Urzúa-Márquez
1,
Javiera Yáñez-Castillo
1,
Martín Trujillo-Riveros
1,
Zmilovan Koscina
1,
Mathias Orellana-Donoso
1,3,
Pablo Nova-Baeza
1,
Alejandra Suazo-Santibañez
4,
Juan Sanchis-Gimeno
5,
Alejandro Bruna-Mejias
6 and
Héctor Gutiérrez Espinoza
7,* 1
Departamento de Morfología, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Andrés Bello, Santiago 8370146, Chile
2
Departamento de Ciencias Química y Biológicas, Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Bernardo O’Higgins, Santiago 8370993, Chile
3
Escuela de Medicina, Universidad Finis Terrae, Santiago 7501015, Chile
4
Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, Universidad de Las Américas, Santiago 8370040, Chile
5
GIAVAL Research Group, Department of Anatomy and Human Embryology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Valencia, 46001 Valencia, Spain
6
Departamento de Ciencias y Geografía, Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Exactas, Universidad de Playa Ancha, Valparaíso 2360072, Chile
7
One Health Research Group, Universidad de Las Américas, Quito 170124, Ecuador
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13(13), 3689; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13133689
Submission received: 21 April 2024
/
Revised: 1 June 2024
/
Accepted: 14 June 2024
/
Published: 25 June 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Nephrology & Urology)
Abstract
:Background: Variations in renal veins are quite common, and most people do not experience issues due to them. However, these variations are important for healthcare professionals, especially in surgical procedures and imaging studies, as precise knowledge of vascular anatomy is essential to avoid complications during medical interventions. The purpose of this study was to expose the frequency of anatomical variations in the renal vein (RV) and detail their relationship with the retroperitoneal and renal regions. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in the Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, CINAHL, and LILACS databases from their inception until January 2024. Two authors independently carried out the search, study selection, and data extraction and assessed methodological quality using a quality assurance tool for anatomical studies (AQUA). Ultimately, consolidated prevalence was estimated using a random effects model. Results: In total, 91 studies meeting the eligibility criteria were identified. This study included 91 investigations with a total of 46,664 subjects; the meta-analysis encompassed 64 studies. The overall prevalence of multiple renal veins was 5%, with a confidence interval (CI) of 4% to 5%. The prevalence of the renal vein trajectory was 5%, with a CI of 4% to 5%. The prevalence of renal vein branching was 3%, with a CI of 0% to 6%. Lastly, the prevalence of unusual renal vein origin was 2%, with a CI of 1% to 4%. Conclusions: The analysis of these variants is crucial for both surgical clinical management and the treatment of patients with renal transplant and hemodialysis.
1. Introduction
In their usual route, the renal veins (RVs) form in the renal hilum. Along this route, the right renal vein (RRV) receives tributaries, while the left renal vein (LRV) receives the left adrenal vein and the left gonadal vein, ending its journey in the inferior vena cava (IVC) at the level of the L1 vertebra. However, they do not present this way in all individuals, since variants may arise in embryonic development [1,2]. Particularly, when studying RV anatomy, any greater complexity in the RV, due to its relationship with the abdominal aorta (AA) and the superior mesenteric artery (SMA), has its beginning in the embryonic development of these vessels. If anomalies occur in the embryogenesis of this vein, it can surround the AA or the discourse posterior to it. These phenomena are known as the circumaortic renal vein or retroaortic renal vein, respectively. Another important RV variation involves supernumerary veins, also known as multiple RV; instead of one venous trunk, up to four can be found. These variations are more frequently associated with the RRV. Finally, another variation occurs in the accessory vessels that contribute to the RV, including the posterior tributary vein, which connects the posterior course with the renal pelvis [3,4,5,6].
These RV variations have been widely described in meta-analyses of case studies and cadaveric dissections, although the statistics and analysis of their incidences are hardly discussed in the literature. Several studies highlight the importance of these variations in the clinical context. Although they generally do not present symptoms, associations have been described, such as RV hypertension syndrome, in which renal venous hypertension causes venous flow to be directed retrogradely towards the renal parenchyma, generating ruptures of veins in the collecting system. Another syndrome studied in association with these variations is posterior nutcracker syndrome, which presents with macroscopic hematuria and/or associated proteinuria due to compression of the RV. These syndromes have been associated with both variations of LRV described above. Understanding these variations and their incidences can prevent unfavorable results or poor intraoperative practices. The importance of the different renal patterns in renal transplantation and radical nephrectomy cannot be underestimated. Knowledge of the architecture of the renal vessels and a study beforehand to clarify the presence of these variations can be essential to the success of these procedures, especially with the great radiological advances in recent years [7,8,9].
The objective of this review was to know the characteristics and prevalence of the anatomical variants of RV and their relationship with renal pathologies and the importance of knowledge of this anatomical variant in surgeries.
2. Methodology
2.1. Protocol and Registration
To carry out this meta-analysis, we were guided by the Prisma statement. The registration number in the Systematic Reviews Registry (PROSPERO) is CRD42022224066.
2.2. Electronic Search
In order to have the best studies that fit our research question, we searched the following databases during the months of October and November: MEDLINE (via PubMed), Google Scholar, Web of Science (WOS), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Latin American and the Caribbean Literature in Health Sciences (LILACS), and Scopus from its inception until November 2023. Our search strategy included a combination of the following terms: “renal vein” (Mesh), “renal failure” (not Mesh), “renal vein variations” (not Mesh), “vascularization kidney” (not Mesh), “anatomical variation” (not Mesh), “kidney surgery” (Mesh), and “kidney transplant” (Mesh), using the Boolean connectors AND, OR, and NOT.
2.3. Eligibility Criteria
As eligibility criteria, the studies that were included considered the presence of RV variants and their association with some clinical conditions. They were considered eligible for inclusion if the following criteria were met: (1) sample: dissections or images with the presence of the RV variation; (2) results: prevalence of subjects who presented RV variants and their correlation with pathologies of the retroperitoneal region; (3) studies: this systematic review included research articles, retrospective and prospective observational types, published in English in peer-reviewed journals, and indexed in the reviewed databases.
As exclusion criteria we used the following to eliminate from our selection: (1) sample: studies carried out in animals; (2) studies that analyzed variants of the venous system outside the renal region or its drainage area or tract; (3) letters to the editor or comments.
2.4. Study Selection
In order to make a thorough selection of the studies, we three authors analyzed the material independently. In the first instance, two authors (KV and MT) examined the titles and abstracts of the references recovered from the database searches. For the selected studies, the full text of the references that any of the authors considered potentially relevant was obtained. A third reviewer (PN) was involved if a consensus could not be reached. For this purpose, we also performed the agreement test between authors, the kappa test, to analyze reliability and the risk of bias between observers, which in this case gave 0.70, which is interpreted as a good agreement.
2.5. Data Collection Process
Two authors (MO and KV) independently extracted data on the outcomes of each study. The following data were extracted from the included studies: (a) authors and year of publication, (b) country, (c) type of study and number of participants, (d) sample characteristics and prevalence, (e) reported statistical values, (f) region geography of the study, (g) sex of the sample, and (h) laterality of the presence of the variant (right, left, and bilateral).
2.6. Assessment of the Methodological Quality of the Included Studies
To evaluate the bias of the included studies, we used the verification table for anatomical studies (AQUA) proposed by the International Working Group on Evidence-Based Anatomy (IEBA) [10]. Two reviewers (JJV and JM) independently analyzed the 5 domains proposed by the AQUA tool, then reached a consensus and constructed the table and the bias graph.
2.7. Publication Bias
Through JAMOVI, we made funnel plots. For publication bias, we have the funnel plot graph, where theoretically the data that most affect this criterion are the statistical significance of the primary article and its sample; this graph crosses the sample measurement against the exposure association or confidence interval transformed into standard error against the sample size.
2.8. Statistical Methods
For the statistical analysis, we used the JAMOVI technological tool Version 4.0 2022 (R Core Team, 2021) [11]. Where we included the data in a binary way and continuously to obtain the proportion of the data which we expressed in prevalence, the statistical model used was the DerSimonian–Laird with a Freeman–Tukey double-arcsine transformation to combine the summarized data. Additionally, a random effects model was used because the VD prevalence data were very heterogeneous. The degree of heterogeneity among the included studies was assessed using the chi2 test and the heterogeneity statistic (I2). Finally, with the JAMOVI tool, we analyzed a funnel plot graph where the magnitude of the measured effect is represented, which is graphed in a funnel plot [10].
3. Results
3.1. Included Articles
The researchers identified a total of 1456 articles in various databases that met the established criteria and search terms. Titles and/or abstracts of the articles in the consulted databases were filtered, primarily using duplicate elimination as the initial criterion. Subsequently, 180 full-text articles were analyzed to determine their eligibility in this meta-analysis and systematic review. A total of 148 studies were excluded due to discrepancies in primary and secondary outcomes concerning this review and not meeting the criteria for corresponding data extraction. As a result, 90 articles (n = 46,664) were included for analysis, encompassing patients, images, and cadavers (Figure 1).
3.2. Characteristics of the Studies and the Study Population
The samples analyzed in the reviewed studies came from all continents except Oceania. In Europe, 36 studies were conducted, representing 40% of the total. The cumulative number of patients in these studies was 33,790, consolidating 72.41% of the reviewed samples. A total of 18 studies (20%) were carried out in Asia, with a total of 3368 patients, representing 7.22% of the analyzed samples. In North America, 21 studies were conducted (23.3%), with a cumulative number of 7048 patients, representing 15.1% of the samples. South America had nine studies (10%) with a total of 969 patients, accounting for 2.07% of the samples in our analysis (Table 1 and Figure 2). Finally, in Africa, six studies were conducted (6.6%), with a cumulative total of 1489 patients, representing 3.19% of the sample size in our analysis.
Regarding the focus of the studies, 42 analyzed the renal vein bilaterally, while 4 focused only on the right side and 44 only on the left side. In addition, of the patients included in the reviewed studies, 31.91% were male, 25.63% were female, and 41.19% chose not to specify their gender (Table 1).
3.3. Description of Variants
Among the RV variants found in the literature that we analyzed in this prevalence study, variations were found at the level of origin of the RV and the trajectory of the RV; additionally, some cases included multiple RV and variations in the ramifications of the RV. For the variants in the origin of the RV, a variant of origin of LRV was considered any situation in which the RV, both unilaterally and bilaterally, arose from a level lower than L2-L3 from the IVC; the RV arose from a different site to the IVC; the drainage occurred at the level of the lateral aspect of the IVC; or a late venous confluence was present where both the origin of the RV and its path towards the renal hilum were affected. For the RV course variants, the normal course of the RV was considered in which the RV crossed the anterior part of the AA to drain into the IVC. The variants observed in the literature with the highest prevalence were the retroaortic and circumaortic paths of RV (Figure 3 and Figure 4). A retroaortic RV path is any path in which the RV crosses the posterior part of the AA, finally draining into the IVC; a circumaortic course is one in which the RV forms a circle around the AA and drains into the IVC. For the multiple RV variant, all RVs with a single vascular trunk were considered normal. The ones with double, triple, and quadruple trunk of the RV were considered multiple RV variants, either unilaterally or bilaterally. Finally, all cases in which the RV had one or more accessory branches and the latter ending up draining into the IVC were considered the RV branching variant (Figure 5).
3.4. Prevalence
To calculate the prevalence of RV variants in the studies included in this review (Table 2), four proportion forest plots were made. For the multiple RV variant, a forest diagram was made with 22 studies (Figure 6) [15,20,21,28,30,31,32,33,49,50,53,54,57,72,77,80,82,83,86,90,94,97]. For this first sample, the funnel plot graph showed an important asymmetry which presented a p value of 0.412, which is directly related to this asymmetry (Figure 7). The diagram showed that the prevalence of multiple RV was 7%, with a confidence interval of 6% to 9%. For the RV course variant, 64 studies were included (Figure 8) [3,7,15,18,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,29,31,33,34,37,38,39,41,42,43,44,45,46,49,50,53,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,72,73,74,75,76,78,79,81,82,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,94,95,97,98]. For this second sample, the funnel plot graph showed an important asymmetry which presented a p value of 0.560, which is directly related to this asymmetry (Figure 9, and the prevalence of the RV course variant was 5%, with a confidence interval of 4% to 5%. The RV branching variant forest plot included four (Figure 10) [43,66,80,90]. For this third sample, the funnel plot graph showed an important asymmetry which presents a p value of 0.162, which is directly related to this asymmetry (Figure 11). The prevalence of RV ramifications was 3%, with a confidence interval of 0% to 6%. Finally, for the unusual origin of RV, three studies were analyzed, and the prevalence was 2%, with a confidence interval of 1% to 4% (Figure 12) [53,60,73]. For this fourth sample, the funnel plot graph showed an important asymmetry which presented a p value of 0.382, which is directly related to this asymmetry (Figure 13). The pooled prevalence of studies independently in prospective studies (49 studies) and retrospective studies (15 studies) was calculated. The prevalence in prospective studies was p = 0.413 (95% CI 0.323–0.504), and in retrospective studies, it was p = 0.278 (95% CI 0.03–0.526). It is noted that the difference was not significant. Additionally, it is important to highlight that heterogeneity was very high in both groups (I2 91.63% in prospective studies and 92.62% in retrospective studies). Furthermore, it is worth noting that in both groups, there was publication bias based on the asymmetry of the funnel plot.
3.5. Risk of Bias of Included Articles
A total of 79 articles were evaluated with the AQUA checklist to analyze the risk of bias in five domains (Figure 10). For the first domain, which covers the description of the objectives and characteristics of the study, all studies presented a low risk of bias. The second domain is the correct reporting of the study design. A total of 76 studies presented a low risk of bias in this domain, and 3 presented a high risk since they did not clearly report the design of their studies [18,75,94]. For the third domain, which analyzes the study’s methodological characteristics, 77 studies presented a low risk of bias, while 2 presented a high risk since their methodology was unclear [32,70]. The fourth domain is the correct description of anatomy. A total of 78 studies presented a low risk of bias in this domain, while only 1 study presented a higher risk since it did not include an anatomical description of the variant but instead merely named it [88]. In the final domain, which involves reporting results, 72 studies presented a low risk of bias, 2 presented their results unclearly, and 5 studies presented a high risk of bias since their results were presented diffusely in tables or in discussion sections [18,57,75,88,94] (Figure 14).
For the analysis of studies with case report methodology, the JBI tool was used to assess the risk of bias. A total of 12 studies were analyzed within the eight domains of this bias tool [13,14,16,19,35,40,48,52,55,71,93,99]. The majority presented a low risk of bias in domains 1 to 6. However, in domain 7, which focuses on adverse events (harms) or unanticipated events, seven studies presented a high risk of bias [13,14,16,19,52,71,99]. Domain 8 analyzes whether the case report provides takeaway lessons. Seven studies presented a high risk of bias since they did not comply with what was proposed in this domain (Table 3 and Table 4) [13,14,16,40,52,55,71].
3.6. Clinical Considerations
Among the 90 studies analyzed in this review, 59 demonstrated some clinical correlation to the various anatomical variations of RV. For the most part, these variations are clinically silent [29,33,39,47,67,77,83]; however, when they produce symptoms, we can observe syndromes such as the “nutcracker syndrome” [2,22,24,29,41,65,100], which corresponds to a compression of the LRV in its retroaortic variation caused by the SMA (superior mesenteric artery) and the AA (abdominal aorta). This syndrome is rare and classically presents with proteinuria and hematuria; therefore, it is diagnosed through laboratory tests, such as urinalysis [25,29,31,34,39,42,58,65,83]. It can also have significant complications, such as dilation of the gonadal vein, generating varicocele in men [2,22,23,25,34,42,61,65], and pelvic congestion syndrome in women [29,39,58,83]. Varicocele is the dilation of the veins within the scrotum. It is usually asymptomatic but can cause a decrease in sperm production and quality, which may eventually lead to infertility. On the other hand, pelvic congestion syndrome in women is the accumulation of venous blood in the pelvis. This is a common cause of chronic pelvic pain in women and causes the appearance of varicose veins in the vulva, vagina, or thigh [34].
Preoperative knowledge of each of these anatomical variations is of utmost importance, since they can influence the viability of the procedure [77]. Understanding them helps facilitate the procedure’s safe performance [29,45,54] and reduce complications during and after retroperitoneal interventions, which include kidney transplantation, AA aneurysm surgery, gonadal surgery, lymphadenectomy, and nephrectomy [6,23,24,35,46,48,49,65,70,72,78,79,95]. The most prominent compilation is hemorrhage [28,32,34,43,74,80,89]. On the other hand, ignorance of these variables can compromise or complicate surgery [30,31,101] and even cause injury to some of these vessels [26,33,83,88]. Various types of imaging, such as computed axial tomography (CAT) angiography [33,63,78], abdominal computed tomography (CT) with contrast [44,45,46,52,88], and multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) [24,31,50,57,63,64,93,102], have been recommended to study the different anatomical variations of RV.
4. Discussion
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to report the anatomo-clinical characteristics and prevalence of RV variants and their association with pathologies of the kidney or surrounding structures. The main finding of our review was the correlation between the prevalence of RV variants and different surgeries of the renal region, as well as hemodialysis.
As we observed in this review, variants of RV can be of more than one type, including variants in the origin of RV or journey and entry to the IVC; increased numbers of RV, known as multiple RV, can also occur. Yi et al. (2012) [35] also analyzed RV variants. Only 27 studies were included, in contrast to the present study, which included 90 studies overall and 63 for the meta-analysis of RV journey prevalence. Furthermore, we believe that the prevalence of RV variants is overestimated in their review. They present very high values and define them as common variabilities. Our detailed study shows low prevalence in our different forest plots, suggesting that their data may have been calculated with values from primary studies that only looked for the variant.
The last manuscript associated with the variants of the RV was published in 2019, so this review updates the topic of RV over the past 5 years. In relation to the latter, we make a detailed review of the anatomy of the different variants of the renal vein, adding that we make a clinical correlation, which is why, apart from the years of the last publication on the RV variants, we approached the variant through translational anatomy and providing strong support between the anatomy and the clinical correlations. Hostiuc et al.’s (2019) [103] review does not detail the anatomical characteristics of each RV; in our study, we detailed the variants by subgroup. Their review included 105 studies with an accurate meta-analysis; it differs from our study in that they did not detail the clinical correlations of these. Furthermore, we provided a detailed anatomical description of each variant to provide clinical support for the study of translational anatomy of RV.
There was no indication in the included studies that RV variants had any type of relationship to the sex of the subjects. Similarly, there was no type of indication that RV variants are associated with any specific ethnicity or race; however, to further support this hypothesis, we suggest that more interracial studies should be carried out. With respect to laterality, there was also no type of indication in the studies that variants were associated with the left side or with the right side in specific ethnicities. Finally, age was a value that we did not consider in our study since variants are congenital and thus unrelated to the age of the subjects.
We grouped the variants as RV course variant, multiple RV variant, unusual origin of RV, and variant of RV ramifications. Studies that reported the RV course variant were more commonly found; this is associated with a retroaortic and anteroaortic passage, generating a kind of circumduction on the RV. We did not consider primary studies that showed low prevalences, because if we included all the studies, the results could have been overestimated. We believe that when the prevalence of the variants was high, it is because the sample was intentional and not random; this alters the data from the prevalence meta-analysis, so we decided to not include these results. We generated four prevalence forest plots and found a prevalence of 8% for multiple RV, a prevalence of 5% for course variants, a prevalence of 5% for RV ramifications variants, and a prevalence of 2% for unusual origin of the RV. Finally, we analyzed the publication bias through a funnel plot for each of the prevalence measurements, and we detected a high level of publication bias among some studies, which is why the data must be interpreted with caution.
The heterogeneity of the studies was between 80 and 97%, which is high and could over- or underestimate the reported results. Thus, they should be taken with caution, and we recommend further studies. The AQUA tool was used to assess the bias of the included studies. The results show a low risk of bias in the five domains in all the included studies; therefore the data were included with greater security for the analysis. The case reports presented greater bias in the analysis of results, so we only considered those that presented variants that were underrepresented in the literature or reported some important clinical correlation that supported their inclusion. Finally, while the clinical considerations reported in this study were varied, we focused above all on the intrasurgical care of the abdominal region and the retroperitoneal region, since these variants are often silent and their description or discovery is associated with routine examinations or pathologies of surrounding structures. The only syndrome reported with symptomatology is “nutcracker syndrome”, which typically presents signs such as hematuria and must be diagnosed with laboratory tests. This syndrome is very rare in the literature; unfortunately, no article presented a clear prevalence, but we estimate due to the amount of information on the subject that it is less than 1%.
In kidney transplantation, dilemmas can arise due to the positioning of the RV. In the presence of these variants, the veins have acquired an arrangement in the abdominal region, occupying uncommon regions. Patients are often asymptomatic, so many surgeons choose to maintain the arrangements of these variants in transplant surgery [104,105,106]. Finally, an equally important clinical correlation is the presence of RV variation before hemodialysis, which is associated with greater complexity in performing the catheterization, because the arrangement of the RV and the surrounding structures may be different. It has also been reported that this could increase the probability of clots or thrombi; a thorough analysis of the region can prevent these complex conditions.
5. Limitations
This review was limited by the publication and authorship bias of the included studies. First, studies with different results that were in the nonindexed literature in the selected databases may have been excluded. Second, there could be limitations in the sensitivity and specificity of the searches. Finally, the authors personally selected articles. All of this increases the probability of excluding potential cases from countries outside of Asia and North America that are not being reported in the scientific community.
6. Conclusions
The presence of RV variants has been widely described in the literature. Our results show that the variants of the renal vein can be multiple and that mainly, the lack of knowledge of these could cause iatrogenic injuries during surgeries of structures surrounding the kidney. Regarding patients who receive a kidney transplant and present the RV variant, the surgeon must know how this variant could make work more difficult with these patients; however, prior knowledge could help the surgery to be planned with all these considerations, and these changes could improve the probability of surgical success in these patients. We also believe that more studies that explain how this variant behaves and the symptoms associated with the variant could be necessary.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, M.O.-D., A.B.-M., K.V.-T. and J.J.V.F.; methodology, M.T.-R., Z.K. and P.N.-B.; software, J.J.V.F. and H.G.E.; validation, J.J.V.F., J.S.-G. and M.O.-D.; formal analysis, C.U.-M. and J.Y-C.; investigation, J.J.V.F., H.G.E. and J.Y.-C.; resources, J.J.V.F.; data curation, K.V.-T., A.B.-M. and Z.K.; writing—original draft preparation, P.N.-B.; writing—review and editing, J.J.V.F.; visualization, M.O.-D. and A.S.-S.; supervision, A.S.-S.; project administration J.J.V.F. and A.B.-M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Itoh, M.; Moriyama, H.; Tokunaga, Y.; Miyamoto, K.; Nagata, W.; Satriotomo, I.; Shimada, K.; Takeuchi, Y. Embryological consideration of drainage of the left testicular vein into the ipsilateral renal vein: Analysis of cases of a double inferior vena cava. Int. J. Androl. 2001, 24, 142–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bowdino, C.S.; Owens, J.; Shaw, P.M. Anatomy, Abdomen and Pelvis, Renal Veins. In StatPearls; StatPearls Publishing: Treasure Island, FL, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- Hoeltl, W.; Hruby, W.; Aharinejad, S. Renal vein anatomy and its implications for retroperitoneal surgery. J. Urol. 1990, 143, 1108–1114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Iimura, A.; Oguchi, T.; Matsuo, M.; Hayashi, S.; Moriyama, H.; Itoh, M. Anatomical study of the coexistence of the postaortic left brachiocephalic vein with the postaortic left renal vein with a review of the literature. Okajimas Folia Anat. Jpn. 2014, 91, 73–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Famurewa, O.C.; Asaleye, C.M.; Ibitoye, B.O.; Ayoola, O.O.; Aderibigbe, A.S.; Badmus, T.A. Variations of renal vascular anatomy in a nigerian population: A computerized tomography studys. Niger. J. Clin. Pract. 2018, 21, 840–846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shaheen, R.; Jamil, M.N.; Farooq, U. Anatomic Patterns of Right Renal Vein. J. Ayub Med. Coll. Abbottabad. 2019, 31, 55–59. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Janschek, E.C.; Rothe, A.U.; Hölzenbein, T.J.; Langer, F.; Brugger, P.C.; Pokorny, H.; Domenig, C.M.; Rasoul-Rockenschaub, S.; Mühlbacher, F. Anatomic basis of right renal vein extension for cadaveric kidney transplantation. Urology 2004, 63, 660–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pinto, M.S.; Mitre, A.I.; Sheepmaker, R.; Nahas, W.C.; Dénes, F.T.; Coelho, R.F.; David Neto, E.; Srougi, M. Evaluation of cadaveric renal vein lengths and their extension loss with three types of ligature and section. J. Endourol. 2009, 23, 995–1000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vu, L.N.; Nghia, N.Q.; Thanh, D.T.; Giang, T.B.; Nga, V.T.; Bui, L.M.; Chu, D.T. Laparoscopic living donor right nephrectomy: Assessment of outcome and association of BMI to length of right renal vein. Actas Urol. Esp. (Engl. Ed.) 2019, 43, 536–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Henry, B.M.; Tomaszewski, K.A.; Walocha, J.A. Methods of Evidence-Based Anatomy: A guide to conducting systematic reviews and meta-analysis of anatomical studies. Ann. Anat. 2016, 205, 16–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. (2021) (Version 4.0) [Computer Software]. R Packages Retrieved from MRAN Snapshot 2021-04-01. Available online: https://cran.r-project.org (accessed on 20 March 2024).
- Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Rev. Esp. Cardiol. 2021, 74, 790–799, Correction in Rev. Esp. Cardiol. (Engl. Ed.) 2022, 75, 192. [Google Scholar]
- Pedrão, I.; Valeri, M.T.A.; Gonsalves, D.G.; Afonso, N.M.; Signori, A.G.; Rissi, R. Anomalous drainage of the right gonadal vein. Anat. Sci. Int. 2023, 98, 143–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Silva, T.A.; Buonfiglio, V.B. Triple Retroaortic Renal Vein with Tumor Thrombus. Urology 2021, 154, e17–e18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pradeep, R.; Amatya, I.; Kayastha, P.; Paudel, S.; Suwal, S.; Ghimire, R.K. Normal Anatomy and Variants of Renal Vasculature with Multidetector Computed Tomography in a Tertiary Care Hospital: A Descriptive Cross-sectional Study. JNMA J. Nepal Med. Assoc. 2020, 58, 911–914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salimy, M.S.; Luiselli, G.A.; Yuen, M.; Healy, R.C.; Shah, S.G.; Giannaris, E.L.; Das, M.; Wink, A.E. A case of solitary kidney with duplex collecting systems and renal vascular variants in an adult male cadaver. Folia Morphol. 2021, 80, 722–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fontana, F.; Coppola, A.; Ossola, C.; Beneventi, A.; Macchi, E.; Fugazzola, C. Hypoplasia of right renal vein with aberrant drainage into ipsilateral spermatic vein: Case report. Radiol. Case Rep. 2018, 14, 156–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tatarano, S.; Enokida, H.; Yamada, Y.; Nishimura, H.; Yoshino, H.; Ishihara, T.; Yonemori, M.; Eura, R.; Sakaguchi, T.; Nakagawa, M. Anatomical Variations of the Left Renal Vein During Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy. Transplant. Proc. 2019, 51, 1311–1313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dunnwald, M.; Pizzimenti, M.A. A Case Study of Malrotated Kidneys with Asymmetric Multiple Renal Arteries, Variant Venous Drainage, and Unilateral Ureteral Duplication. Case Rep. Vasc. Med. 2019, 2019, 1893137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hassan, S.S.; El-Shaarawy, E.A.; Johnson, J.C.; Youakim, M.F.; Ettarh, R. Incidence of variations in human cadaveric renal vessels. Folia Morphol. 2017, 76, 394–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nambur, B. A study of renal veins. Int. J. Anat. Res. 2017, 5, 4463–4468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ayaz, S.; Ayaz, Ü.Y. Detection of retroaortic left renal vein and circumaortic left renal vein by PET/CT images to avoid misdiagnosis and support possible surgical procedures. Hell. J. Nucl. Med. 2016, 19, 135–139. [Google Scholar]
- Çınar, C.; Türkvatan, A. Prevalence of renal vascular variations: Evaluation with MDCT angiography. Diagn. Interv. Imaging 2016, 97, 891–897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Duran, J.T.C.; Ferreira, H. Anatomical Study of Retro-Aortic Left Renal Vein. J. Chem. Pharm. Res. 2016, 8, 1011–1018. [Google Scholar]
- Kumaresan, M.; Sankaran, P.K.; Gunapriya, R.; Karthikeyan, G.; Priyadarshini, A. Morphometric study of renal vein and its variations using CT. Indian J. Med. Res. Pharm. Sci. 2016, 3, 41–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pandya, V.K.; Patel, A.S.; Sutariya, H.C.; Gandhi, S.P. Evaluation of renal vascular anatomy in live renal donors: Role of multi detector computed tomography. Urol. Ann. 2016, 8, 270–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Staśkiewicz, G.; Jajko, K.; Torres, K.; Czekajska-Chehab, E.; Maciejewski, R.; Drop, A. Supernumerary renal vessels: Analysis of frequency and configuration in 996 computed tomography studies. Folia Morphol. 2016, 75, 245–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bouzouita, A.; Kerkeni, W.; Bouchiba, N.; Allouche, M.; Mighri, M.M.; Hamdoun, M.; Chebil, M. Anatomical variations of renal venous vascularisation. A study of 71 three-dimensional kidney endocasts. Tunis. Med. 2015, 93, 16–20. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Heidler, S.; Hruby, S.; Schwarz, S.; Sellner-Zwieauer, Y.; Hoeltl, W.; Albrecht, W. Prevalence and incidence of clinical symptoms of the retroaortic left renal vein. Urol. Int. 2015, 94, 173–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reginelli, A.; Somma, F.; Izzo, A.; Urraro, F.; D’Andrea, A.; Grassi, R.; Cappabianca, S. Renovascular anatomic variants at CT angiography. Int. Angiol. 2015, 34 (Suppl. 1), 36–42. [Google Scholar]
- Resorlu, M.; Sariyildirim, A.; Resorlu, B.; Sancak, E.B.; Uysal, F.; Adam, G.; Akbas, A.; Aylanc, N.; Gulpinar, M.T.; Karatag, O.; et al. Association of congenital left renal vein anomalies and unexplained hematuria: Multidetector computed tomography findings. Urol. Int. 2015, 94, 177–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, J.; Zhang, L.; Yang, Z.; Zhou, H.; Tang, G. Classification of the renal vein variations: A study with multidetector computed tomography. Surg. Radiol. Anat. 2015, 37, 667–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ballesteros, L.E.; Saldarriaga, V.; Ramirez, L.M. Morphologic evaluation of the renal veins: A study with autopsy material from Colombian subjects. Rom. J. Morphol. Embryol. 2014, 55, 77–81. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Boyaci, N.; Karakas, E.; Dokumacı, D.S.; Yildiz, S.; Cece, H. Evaluation of left renal vein and inferior vena cava variations through routine abdominal multi-slice computed tomography. Folia Morphol. 2014, 73, 159–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ferreira, A.H. Variaciones anatómicas de vasos renales y testiculares bilaterales. Rev. CES Med. 2014, 28, 273–281. [Google Scholar]
- Lavy, M.; Martin, L.; Eouzan, D.; Turco, C.; Heyd, B.; Mantion, G.; Parratte, B.; Tatu, L. An unusual case of Y-shaped right renal vein. Surg. Radiol. Anat. 2015, 37, 101–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rashid, R.J.; Tarzemani, M.K.; Mohtasham, M.A.; Zomorrodi, A.; Kakaei, F.; Jalili, J.; Habibzadeh, A. Diagnostic accuracy of 64-MDCT angiography in the preoperative evaluation of renal vessels and compared with laparotomy findings in living donor kidney. Ren. Fail. 2014, 36, 327–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Șahin, C.; Kaçira, O.K.; Tüney, D. The retroaortic left renal vein abnormalities in cross-sectional imaging. Folia Med. (Plovdiv) 2014, 56, 38–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dilli, A.; Ayaz, U.Y.; Kaplanoğlu, H.; Saltas, H.; Hekimoglu, B. Evaluation of the left renal vein variations and inferior vena cava variations by means of helical computed tomography. Clin. Imaging 2013, 37, 530–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eid, N.; Ito, Y.; Otsuki, Y. The left inferior vena cava: A surgically important variant tributary of left renal vein. Surg. Radiol. Anat. 2013, 35, 455–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poyraz, A.K.; Firdolas, F.; Onur, M.R.; Kocakoc, E. Evaluation of left renal vein entrapment using multidetector computed tomography. Acta Radiol. 2013, 54, 144–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tao, X.F.; Zhu, J.Q.; Wu, Y.W.; Tang, G.Y.; Shi, Y.Z.; Zhang, L.; Lin, Y.; Wang, Z.Q. Dual-energy computed tomography angiography for evaluating the renal vascular variants. Chin. Med. J. (Engl.) 2013, 126, 650–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Apisarnthanarak, P.; Suvannarerg, V.; Muangsomboon, K.; Taweemonkongsap, T.; Hargrove, N.S. Renal vascular variants in living related renal donors: Evaluation with CT angiography. J. Med. Assoc. Thai. 2012, 95, 941–948. [Google Scholar]
- Atalar, M.H.; Kosar, M.I.; Salk, I.; Isleyen, M. Left renal vein abnormalities detected during routine abdominal computed tomography imaging: Clinico-radiological significance. Folia Morphol. 2012, 71, 168–172. [Google Scholar]
- Bouali, O.; Labarre, D.; Molinier, F.; Lopez, R.; Benouaich, V.; Lauwers, F.; Moscovici, J. Anatomic variations of the renal vessels: Focus on the precaval right renal artery. Surg. Radiol. Anat. 2012, 34, 441–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dilli, A.; Ayaz, U.Y.; Karabacak, O.R.; Tatar, I.G.; Hekimoglu, B. Study of the left renal variations by means of magnetic resonance imaging. Surg. Radiol. Anat. 2012, 34, 267–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gupta, A.; Gupta, R.; Singal, R. Congenital Variations of Renal Veins: Embryological Background and Clinical Implications. J. Chem. Pharm. Res. 2011, 5, 1140–1143. [Google Scholar]
- Yi, S.Q.; Ueno, Y.; Naito, M.; Ozaki, N.; Itoh, M. The three most common variations of the left renal vein: A review and meta-analysis. Surg. Radiol. Anat. 2012, 34, 799–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costa, H.C.; Moreira, R.J.; Fukunaga, P.; Fernandes, R.C.; Boni, R.C.; Matos, A.C. Anatomic variations in vascular and collecting systems of kidneys from deceased donors. Transplant. Proc. 2011, 43, 61–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kulkarni, S.; Emre, S.; Arvelakis, A.; Asch, W.; Bia, M.; Formica, R.; Israel, G. Multidetector CT angiography in living donor renal transplantation: Accuracy and discrepancies in right venous anatomy. Clin. Transplant. 2011, 25, 77–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, G.; Dong, J.; Lu, J.S.; Zu, Q.; Yang, S.X.; Li, H.Z.; Ma, X.; Zhang, X. Anatomical variation of the posterior lumbar tributaries of the left renal vein in retroperitoneoscopic left living donor nephrectomy. Int. J. Urol. 2011, 18, 503–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Favaro, W.J.; Santos, T.D.; Cagnon, V.H. Venous communication between the right and left kidneys: A rare anatomic variation. Int. J. Morphol. 2009, 27, 117–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turkvatan, A.; Akinci, S.; Yildiz, S.; Olçer, T.; Cumhur, T. Multidetector computed tomography for preoperative evaluation of vascular anatomy in living renal donors. Surg. Radiol. Anat. 2009, 31, 227–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaneko, N.; Kobayashi, Y.; Okada, Y. Anatomic variations of the renal vessels pertinent to transperitoneal vascular control in the management of trauma. Surgery 2008, 143, 616–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mir, N.S.; Ul Hassan, A.; Rangrez, R.; Hamid, S.; Sabia Tabish, S.A.; Iqbal Suhaila Masarat Rasool, Z. Bilateral Duplication of Renal Vessels: Anatomical, Medical and Surgical perspective. Int. J. Health Sci. (Qassim) 2008, 2, 179–185. [Google Scholar]
- Natsis, K.; Tsitouridis, I.; Totlis, T.; Levva, S.; Tsikaras, P.; Skandalakis, P. Proposal for classification of the circumaortic renal collar’s morphology. Am. Surg. 2008, 74, 1190–1194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tombul, S.T.; Aki, F.T.; Gunay, M.; Inci, K.; Hazirolan, T.; Karcaaltincaba, M.; Erkan, I.; Bakkaloglu, A.; Yasavul, U.; Bakkaloglu, M. Preoperative evaluation of hilar vessel anatomy with 3-D computerized tomography in living kidney donors. Transplant. Proc. 2008, 40, 47–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yagci, B.; Tavasli, B.; Karabulut, N.; Kiroglu, Y. Clinical significance and renal haemodynamics of incidentally detected retroaortic left renal vein: Assessment with venous Doppler sonography. Br. J. Radiol. 2008, 81, 187–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holt, P.J.; Adshead, J.M.; Filiadis, I.; Christmas, T.J. Retroperitoneal anomalies in men with testicular germ cell tumours. BJU Int. 2007, 99, 344–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karaman, B.; Koplay, M.; Ozturk, E.; Basekim, C.C.; Ogul, H.; Mutlu, H.; Kizilkaya, E.; Kantarci, M. Retroaortic left renal vein: Multidetector computed tomography angiography findings and its clinical importance. Acta Radiol. 2007, 48, 355–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karazincir, S.; Balci, A.; Görür, S.; Sumbas, H.; Kiper, A.N. Incidence of the retroaortic left renal vein in patients with varicocele. J. Ultrasound Med. 2007, 26, 601–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Koc, Z.; Ulusan, S.; Oguzkurt, L.; Tokmak, N. Venous variants and anomalies on routine abdominal multi-detector row CT. Eur. J. Radiol. 2007, 61, 267–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Raman, S.S.; Pojchamarnwiputh, S.; Muangsomboon, K.; Schulam, P.G.; Gritsch, H.A.; Lu, D.S. Surgically relevant normal and variant renal parenchymal and vascular anatomy in preoperative 16-MDCT evaluation of potential laparoscopic renal donors. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 2007, 188, 105–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Namasivayam, S.; Kalra, M.K.; Waldrop, S.M.; Mittal, P.K.; Small, W.C. Multidetector row CT angiography of living related renal donors: Is there a need for venous phase imaging? Eur. J. Radiol. 2006, 59, 442–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arslan, H.; Etlik, O.; Ceylan, K.; Temizoz, O.; Harman, M.; Kavan, M. Incidence of retro-aortic left renal vein and its relationship with varicocele. Eur. Radiol. 2005, 15, 1717–1720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kawamoto, S.; Lawler, L.P.; Fishman, E.K. Evaluation of the renal venous system on late arterial and venous phase images with MDCT angiography in potential living laparoscopic renal donors. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 2005, 184, 539–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Klemm, P.; Fröber, R.; Köhler, C.; Schneider, A. Vascular anomalies in the paraaortic region diagnosed by laparoscopy in patients with gynaecologic malignancies. Gynecol. Oncol. 2005, 96, 278–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lin, C.H.; Steinberg, A.P.; Ramani, A.P.; Abreu, S.C.; Desai, M.M.; Kaouk, J.; Goldfarb, D.A.; Gill, I.S. Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy in the presence of circumaortic or retroaortic left renal vein. J. Urol. 2004, 171, 44–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yeh, B.M.; Coakley, F.V.; Meng, M.V.; Breiman, R.S.; Stoller, M.L. Precaval right renal arteries: Prevalence and morphologic associations at spiral CT. Radiology 2004, 230, 429–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yeşildağ, A.; Adanir, E.; Köroğlu, M.; Baykal, B.; Oyar, O.; Gülsoy, U.K. Rutin abdomen BT’de sol renal ven anomalilerinin görülme sikliği [Incidence of left renal vein anomalies in routine abdominal CT scans]. Tani. Girisim. Radyol. 2004, 10, 140–143. (In Turkish) [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Senecail, B.; Bobeuf, J.; Forlodou, P.; Nonent, M. Two rare anomalies of the left renal vein. Surg. Radiol. Anat. 2003, 25, 465–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Duques, P.; Rodrigues, J.R.; Silva Neto, F.B.; SNeto, E.M.; Tolêdo, E.S. Estudo anatômico da veia renal izquierda de cadáveres humanos brasileiros. Medicina 2002, 35, 184–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sèbe, P.; Peyromaure, M.; Raynaud, A.; Delmas, V. Anatomical variations in the drainage of the principal adrenal veins: The results of 88 venograms. Surg. Radiol. Anat. 2002, 24, 222–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aljabri, B.; MacDonald, P.S.; Satin, R.; Stein, L.S.; Obrand, D.I.; Steinmetz, O.K. Incidence of major venous and renal anomalies relevant to aortoiliac surgery as demonstrated by computed tomography. Ann. Vasc. Surg. 2001, 15, 615–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shindo, S.; Kubota, K.; Kojima, A.; Iyori, K.; Ishimoto, T.; Kobayashi, M.; Kamiya, K.; Tada, Y. Anomalies of inferior vena cava and left renal vein: Risks in aortic surgery. Ann. Vasc. Surg. 2000, 14, 393–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yoshinaga, K.; Kawai, K.; Kodama, K. An anatomical study of the retroaortic left renal vein. Okajimas Folia Anat. Jpn. 2000, 77, 47–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Satyapal, K.S.; Kalideen, J.M.; Haffejee, A.A.; Singh, B.; Robbs, J.V. Left renal vein variations. Surg. Radiol. Anat. 1999, 21, 77–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pozniak, M.A.; Balison, D.J.; Lee, F.T., Jr.; Tambeaux, R.H.; Uehling, D.T.; Moon, T.D. CT angiography of potential renal transplant donors. Radiographics 1998, 18, 565–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trigaux, J.P.; Vandroogenbroek, S.; De Wispelaere, J.F.; Lacrosse, M.; Jamart, J. Congenital anomalies of the inferior vena cava and left renal vein: Evaluation with spiral CT. J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol. 1998, 9, 339–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baptista-Silva, J.C.; Veríssimo, M.J.; Castro, M.J.; Câmara, A.L.; Pestana, J.O. Anatomical study of the renal veins observed during 342 living-donor nephrectomies. Sao Paulo Med. J. 1997, 115, 1456–1459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hicks, M.E.; Malden, E.S.; Vesely, T.M.; Picus, D.; Darcy, M.D. Prospective anatomic study of the inferior vena cava and renal veins: Comparison of selective renal venography with cavography and relevance in filter placement. J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol. 1995, 6, 721–729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kaufman, J.A.; Waltman, A.C.; Rivitz, S.M.; Geller, S.G. Anatomical observations on the renal veins and inferior vena cava at magnetic resonance angiography. Cardiovasc. Interv. Radiol. 1995, 18, 153–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Satyapal, K.S. Classification of the drainage patterns of the renal veins. J. Anat. 1995, 186 Pt 2, 329–333. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Benedetti-Panici, P.; Maneschi, F.; Scambia, G.; Greggi, S.; Mancuso, S. Anatomic abnormalities of the retroperitoneum encountered during aortic and pelvic lymphadenectomy. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 1994, 170 Pt 1, 111–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martinez-Almagro, A.; Almenar Garcia, V.; Martinez Sanjuan, V.; Hernandez Gil de Tejada, T.; Lorente Montalvo, P. Retroaortic left renal vein: A report of six cases. Surg. Radiol. Anat. 1992, 14, 361–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Monkhouse, W.S.; Khalique, A. The adrenal and renal veins of man and their connections with azygos and lumbar veins. J. Anat. 1986, 146, 105–115. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Mayo, J.; Gray, R.; St Louis, E.; Grosman, H.; McLoughlin, M.; Wise, D. Anomalies of the inferior vena cava. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 1983, 140, 339–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reed, M.D.; Friedman, A.C.; Nealey, P. Anomalies of the left renal vein: Analysis of 433 CT scans. J. Comput. Assist. Tomogr. 1982, 6, 1124–1126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Alexander, J.J.; Gewertz, B.L.; Lu, C.T.; Zarins, C.K. New criteria for placement of a prophylactic vena cava filter. Surg. Gynecol. Obstet. 1986, 163, 405–409. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Beckmann, C.F.; Abrams, H.L. Renal venography: Anatomy, technique, applications, analysis of 132 venograms, and a review of the literature. Cardiovasc. Interv. Radiol. 1980, 3, 45–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kramer, B. The incidence of the renal venous collar in South African blacks. S. Afr. Med. J. 1980, 57, 875–876. [Google Scholar]
- Lien, H.H.; Kolbenstvedt, A. Phlebographic appearances of the left renal and left testicular veins. Acta Radiol. Diagn. 1977, 18, 321–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goswami, A.P. Anatomical variation of the renal veins with varicosity presenting as pseudotumor of the kidney. J. Urol. 1976, 116, 648–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Royster, T.S.; Lacey, L.; Marks, R.A. Abdominal aortic surgery and the left renal vein. Am. J. Surg. 1974, 127, 552–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Davis, C.J., Jr.; Lundberg, G.D. Retroaortic left renal vein, a relatively frequent anomaly. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 1968, 50, 700–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ross, J.A.; Samuel, E.; Millar, D.R. Variations in the renal vascular pedicle. (An anatomical and radiological study with particular reference to renal transplantation). Br. J. Urol. 1961, 33, 478–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Reis, R.H.; Esenther, G. Variations in the pattern of renal vessels and their relation to the type of posterior vena cava in man. Am. J. Anat. 1959, 104, 295–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Royster, T.S. Thrombophlebitis after vena caval clipping. Am. J. Surg. 1967, 113, 754–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mazengenya, P. Multiple variations of the renal and testicular vessels: Possible embryological basis and clinical importance. Surg. Radiol. Anat. 2016, 38, 729–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Raheem, O.A.; O’Brien, M.; Glacken, P.; Mohan, P.; Hickey, D.P. A review of the anatomical variations of the posterior tributaries of the left renal vein. Ir. J. Med. Sci. 2008, 177, 59–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rydberg, J.; Kopecky, K.K.; Tann, M.; Persohn, S.A.; Leapman, S.B.; Filo, R.S.; Shalhav, A.L. 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, S223–S236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hostiuc, S.; Rusu, M.C.; Negoi, I.; Dorobanțu, B.; Grigoriu, M. Anatomical variants of renal veins: A meta-analysis of prevalence. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 10802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steinmuller, D.; Novick, A.; Braun, W.; Vidt, D.; Nakamoto, S. Renal transplantation of patients on chronic peritoneal dialysis. Am. J. Kidney Dis. 1984, 3, 436–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Stratta, R.J.; D’Alessandro, A.M.; Belzer, F.O. Renal vein reconstruction with interposition allografts in cadaveric renal transplantation. Transpl. Int. 1988, 1, 86–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Andreoli, S.P. Acute renal failure in the newborn. Semin. Perinatol. 2004, 28, 112–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lorenz, J.M.; Regalado, S.; Navuluri, R.; Zangan, S.; Vanha, T.; Funaki, B. Transhepatic guidance of translumbar hemodialysis catheter placement in the setting of chronic infrarenal IVC occlusion. Cardiovasc. Interv. Radiol. 2010, 33, 635–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1.
Flow search diagram [12].
Figure 1.
Flow search diagram [12].
Figure 2.
Geographic distribution of studies and subjects included in this review.
Figure 3.
Retroaortic left renal vein. AA: abdominal aortic; ICV: inferior caval vein; CLRV: circumaortic left renal vein; LK: left kidney.
Figure 3.
Retroaortic left renal vein. AA: abdominal aortic; ICV: inferior caval vein; CLRV: circumaortic left renal vein; LK: left kidney.
Figure 4.
Circumaortic left renal vein. AA: abdominal aortic; ICV: inferior caval vein; CLRV circumaortic left renal vein; LK: left kidney.
Figure 4.
Circumaortic left renal vein. AA: abdominal aortic; ICV: inferior caval vein; CLRV circumaortic left renal vein; LK: left kidney.
Figure 5.
Multiple renal veins. AA: abdominal aortic; ICV: inferior caval vein; RK: right kidney; RRA3 right renal arteries; RRV1, RRV2, RRV3: right renal vein.
Figure 5.
Multiple renal veins. AA: abdominal aortic; ICV: inferior caval vein; RK: right kidney; RRA3 right renal arteries; RRV1, RRV2, RRV3: right renal vein.
Figure 6.
Multiple RV forest plot.
Figure 7.
Multiple RV funnel plot.
Figure 8.
RV course forest plot.
Figure 9.
RV course funnel plot.
Figure 10.
Forest plot branches RV.
Figure 11.
Funnel plot branches RV.
Figure 12.
Forest plot unusual origin of RV.
Figure 13.
Funnel plot unusual origin of RV.
Figure 14.
Graphic of AQUA checklist for included studies.
Table 1.
Characteristics of included studies.
| Author and Year | Number of Patients | Incidence and Characteristics | Statistical Value | Geographic Region | Sex | Laterality |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pedrao, 2023 [13] | Observational N = 1 | Double RRV. | Not mentioned. | Brazil | 1 male | Right |
| Silva, 2021 [14] | Observational N = 1 | Multiple retroaortic LRV. | Not mentioned. | Brazil | 1 male | Left |
| Pradeep, 2020 [15] | Observational N = 188 | Double RRV (12 cases—6.3%). Retroaortic LRV (4 cases—2.1%). | Not mentioned. | Nepal | Not specified | Bilateral |
| Salimy et al., 2020 [16] | Observational N = 1 | Double RRV. Right kidney with double collector system. | Not mentioned. | USA | 1 male | Right |
| Fontana, 2018 [17] | Observational N = 1 | Duplication of circumaortic RV. | Not mentioned. | Italy | 1 male | Left |
| Tatarano et al., 2019 [18] | Observational N = 120 | Circumaortic LRV (6 cases). Retroaortic LRV (1 case). | There was no significant incidence between donors with or without abnormalities on their LRV. | Japan | Not specified | Left |
| Dunnwald, 2019 [19] | Observational N = 1 | Triple RRV (1 case). | Not mentioned. | USA | 1 male | Bilateral |
| Shaheen, 2018 [6] | Observational N = 50 | Double RRV (28 cases—56%), triple (13 cases—26%), quadruple (5 cases—10%). | Not mentioned. | Pakistan | 50 males | Bilateral |
| Hassan, 2017 [20] | Observational N = 63 | Double RV (2 cases—3%), triple (2 cases—3%), quadruple (1 case—2%). | No significant differences between cadavers with or without variations in renal vasculature and age of death (p = 0.67) or gender (p = 0.71). | Egypt | 32 males 31 females | Bilateral |
| Nambur, 2017 [21] | Observational N = 60 | Circumaortic LRV (2 cases—3.3%). Retroaortic LRV (5 cases—8.3%). Double RRV (3 cases—5%). Right gonadal vein draining into RRV (1 case—0.3%). | Not mentioned. | India | Not specified | Bilateral |
| Ayaz, 2016 [22] | Observational N = 222 | Circumaortic LRV (7 cases—3.15%). Retroaortic LRV (6 cases—2.7%). | Not mentioned. | Turkey | 116 males 106 females | Left |
| Çınar, 2016 [23] | Observational N = 504 | Circumaortic LRV (26 cases—5.2%). Retroaortic LRV (21 cases—4.2%). RRV: double (97 cases—19.2%), triple (11 cases—2.2%), quadruple (1 case—0.2%). | No associations were found between sex and the presence of RA or RV variations (p = 0.630 and 0.650, respectively). | Turkey | 317 males 187 females | Bilateral |
| Duran, 2016 [24] | Observational N = 23 | Retroaortic LRV (2 cases—8.7%). | Not mentioned. | Colombia | 12 males 1 females | Left |
| Kumaresan, 2016 [25] | Observational N = 100 | Retroaortic LRV (4 cases—4%). Multiple RV (19 cases—19%) | Not mentioned. | India | Not specified | Bilateral |
| Pandya, 2016 [26] | Observational N = 200 | Circumaortic LRV (8 cases—4%). Retroaortic LRV (5 cases—2.5%). Double LRV (2 cases—1%) Double RRV (61 cases—30.5%), triple (5 cases—2.5%). | Not mentioned. | India | Not specified | Bilateral |
| Staśkiewicz, 2016 [27] | Observational N = 996 | Circumaortic or retroaortic courses of the LRV in 99 cases (10%). | No significant difference was observed in the type of RV course between men and women (c2 = 1.22, p = 0.543). | Poland | 481 males 515 females | Bilateral |
| Bouzouita et al., 2015 [28] | Observational N = 71 | Retroaortic LRV (1 case—1.4%). Double LRV (3 cases—4.2%). Double RRV (5 cases—7%). | Not mentioned. | Tunisia | Not specified | Bilateral |
| Heidler, 2015 [29] | Observational N = 7929 | Retroaortic LRV (61 cases—0.77%). | Not mentioned. | Austria | 4781 males 3148 females | Left |
| Reginelli, 2015 [30] | Observational N = 921 | Multiple RV (94 cases—10.2%). Retroaortic RV (219 cases—23.8%). | Not mentioned. | Italy | 418 males 503 females | Bilateral |
| Resorlu, 2015 [31] | Observational N = 680 | Retroaortic LRV (36 cases—5.4%). Circumaortic LRV (17 cases—2.5%). Multiple RV (46 cases—6.8%). | Hematuria was detected in 23.5% of patients with circumaortic LRV anomaly and 10.1% of patients without anomaly (p = 0.074). Hematuria was found in 21.7% of patients with multiple RV and 9.6% in those without the anomaly (p = 0.009). | Turkey | 391 males 289 females | Left |
| Zhu, 2015 [32] | Observational N = 1452 | Circumaortic LRV (31 cases—2.1%). Retroaortic LRV (30 cases—2.1%). | No statistically significant correlation found between left/right RV variations and sex (p > 0.05). | China | Not specified | Bilateral |
| Ballesteros, 2014 [33] | Observational N = 312 | Circumaortic LRV (1 case—0.32%). Retroaortic LRV (2 cases—0.64%). Double LRV (1 case—0.32%). Double RRV (28 cases—8.9%), triple (5 cases—1.6%). | No significant difference between the presence of additional veins in men and women (p = 0.452) and extrahilar origin between RRV and LRV (p = 0.768). | Colombia | 129 males 27 females | Bilateral |
| Boyaci, 2014 [34] | Observational N = 746 | Circumaortic LRV (18 cases—2.4%). Retroaortic LRV (55 cases—7.4%). | No significant difference between the presence of variations [LRV (p = 0.801), RLRV (p = 0.551), CLRV (p = 0.823)] and sex. | Turkey | 395 males 351 females | Left |
| Ferreira, 2014 [35] | Observational N = 1 | Retroaortic LRV. Multiple RV. | 29 to 65% of pyeloureteral obstructions were related to anomalies in the path of the vessels crossing the renal pelvis. | Colombia | 1 males | Bilateral |
| Lavy et al., 2015 [36] | Observational N = 1 | Multiple RV. | Not mentioned. | France | 1 males | Bilateral |
| Rashid, 2014 [37] | Observational N = 100 | Circumaortic LRV (3 cases). Retroaortic LRV (5 cases). Double RRV (16 cases—16%), triple (1 case—1%). | Not mentioned. | Iran | 91 males 9 females | Bilateral |
| Șahin, 2014 [38] | Observational N = 2189 | Circumaortic LRV (6 cases—0.3%). Retroaortic LRV (44 cases—2%). | Not mentioned. | Turkey | Not specified | Left |
| Dilli, 2013 [39] | Observational N = 1204 | Circumaortic LRV (25 cases—2.1%). Retroaortic LRV (38 cases—3.2%). | Significant correlation between retroaortic LRV and gender (p = 0.036). | Turkey | 642 males 562 females | Left |
| Eid et al., 2013 [40] | Observational N = 1 | LRV origin: IVC. End: RRV. | Not mentioned. | Japan | 1 male | Left |
| Poyraz, 2013 [41] | Observational N = 1000 | Circumaortic LRV (3 cases—0.3%). Retroaortic LRV (65 cases—6.5%). | Diameters of the RRV and LRV were not significantly different (p = 0.1). Diameter of the anterior LRV was significantly greater than contralateral RV in its widest portion (p = 0.04). | Turkey | 537 males 463 females | Left |
| Tao, 2013 [42] | Observational N = 378 | Circumaortic LRV (8 cases—2.1%). Retroaortic LRV (7 cases—1.85%). | Not mentioned. | China | 197 males 181 females | Bilateral |
| Apisarnthanarak, 2012 [43] | Observational N = 65 | Circumaortic LRV (1 case—1.5%). Retroaortic LRV (1 case—1.5%). Double LRV (1 case—1.5%). Double RRV (19 cases—29.2%), triple (4 cases—6.2%). Right gonadal vein draining into the RRV (4 cases—6.2%). | Not mentioned. | Thailand | 25 males 40 females | Bilateral |
| Atalar, 2012 [44] | Observational N = 739 | Circumaortic LRV (6 cases—0.8%). Retroaortic LRV (17 cases—2.3%). | Not mentioned. | Turkey | 425 males 314 females | Left |
| Bouali et al., 2012 [45] | Observational N = 120 | Circumaortic LRV (6 cases—5%). Retroaortic LRV (5 cases—4.17%). Double RRV (22 cases—18.3%), triple (2 cases—1.7%). | Not mentioned. | France | 79 males 41 females | Bilateral |
| Dilli, 2012 [46] | Observational N = 2644 | Circumaortic LRV (27 cases—1.02%). Retroaortic LRV (44 cases—1.66%). | No statistically significant gender difference was found between LRV variations (p = 0.83). | Turkey | 1204 males 1440 females | Left |
| Gupta, 2011 [47] | Observational N = 30 | Circumaortic LRV (2 cases—6.6%). Retroaortic LRV (2 cases—6.6%). Double LRV (1 case—3.3%). Double RRV (1 case—3.3%). | Not mentioned. | India | Not specified | Bilateral |
| Yi et al., 2012 [48] | Observational N = 3 | Circumaortic LRV (1 case). Retroaortic LRV (1 case). | Not mentioned. | Japan | 1 male 2 females | Left |
| Costa et al., 2011 [49] | Observational N = 254 | Circumaortic LRV (1 case). Retroaortic LRV (3 cases). Double LRV (4 cases—1.5%). Double RRV (24 cases—9.8%). | Dominance of venous variations on the right side, 12 times greater than on the left. | Brazil | Not specified | Bilateral |
| Kulkarni, 2011 [50] | Observational N = 102 | Circumaortic RV (5 cases—5%). Retroaortic RV (1 case—1%). Multiple RV (7 cases—7%). | Not mentioned. | USA | Not specified | Not specified |
| Li et al., 2011 [51] | Observational N = 61 | Anastomosis between the LRV and hemiazygos vein (51 cases—83.6%). | Significant differences when comparing operation time. Type 4 took longer (p < 0.05), type 5 shorter time (p < 0.05). | China | 32 males 29 females | Left |
| Favaro et al., 2009 [52] | Observational N = 1 | Venous communication between LRV and RRV. Kidneys without any relation to the IVC or common iliac veins. | Not mentioned. | Brazil | 1 male | Bilateral |
| Turkvatan, 2009 [53] | Observational N = 59 | Circumaortic LRV (2 cases—3.3%). Retroaortic LRV (3 cases—5%). Multiple RV (3 cases—5%). | Greater sensitivity and specificity of MDCT for renal venous anomalies. | Turkey | 32 males 27 females | Bilateral |
| Kaneko et al., 2008 [54] | Observational N = 190 | Multiple RV (25 cases—13%). | Not mentioned. | Japan | Not specified | Bilateral |
| Mir et al., 2008 [55] | Observational N = 1 | Double RV bilaterally. | Not mentioned. | India | Not specified | Bilateral |
| Natsis, 2008 [56] | Observational N = 319 | Circumaortic LRV (8 cases—2.5%). | Not mentioned. | Greece | 173 males 146 females | Left |
| Tombul, 2008 [57] | Observational N = 60 | Multiple RV (9 cases—15%) | Sensitivity of MDCT angiography for veins was 93%. | Turkey | Not specified | Bilateral |
| Yagci, 2008 [58] | Observational N = 783 | Circumaortic LRV (15 cases—2%). Retroaortic LRV (23 cases—3%). Double retroaortic vein (4 cases—0.5%). | No statistically significant difference in ages. | Turkey | Not specified | Left |
| Holt, 2007 [59] | Observational N = 278 | Retroaortic LRV (9 cases—3.2%). | Not mentioned. | UK | 278 males | Left |
| Karaman, 2007 [60] | Observational N = 1856 | Circumaortic LRV (17 cases—8.9%). Retroaortic LRV (68 cases—3.6%). | Not mentioned. | Turkey | Not specified | Left |
| Karazincir, 2007 [61] | Observational N = 277 | Retroaortic LRV in patients (13 cases—9.3%) and controls (3 cases—2.2%). | Significantly higher incidence of varicocele in patients compared to controls (p = 0.018). | Turkey | Not specified | Left |
| Koc, 2007 [62] | Observational N = 1120 | Circumaortic RV (62 cases—5.5%). Retroaortic RV (53 cases—4.7%). Multiple RV (210 cases—18.8%). | Not mentioned. | Turkey | 588 males 532 females | Bilateral |
| Raman, 2007 [63] | Observational N = 126 | Circumaortic LRV (10 cases—8%). Retroaortic LRV (3 cases—2%). Double LRV (10 cases—8%). Double RRV (28 cases—22%), triple (2 cases—2%). | Not mentioned. | USA | 57 males 69 females | Bilateral |
| Namasivayam, 2006 [64] | Observational N = 48 | Circumaortic LRV (1 case—2%). Retroaortic LRV (2 cases—4%). Double RRV (13 cases—27%), triple (1 case—2%). | Venous phase images showed significantly greater opacification of the left renal, gonadal, adrenal, and lumbar veins (p < 0.05). | USA | 20 males 28 females | Bilateral |
| Arslan, 2005 [65] | Observational N = 1125 | Retroaortic LRV (19 cases—1.68%). | Not mentioned. | Turkey | 573 males 552 females | Left |
| Kawamoto, 2005 [66] | Observational N = 100 | Circumaortic LRV (3 cases—3%). Retroaortic LRV (2 cases—2%). Small posterior branch that runs behind the aorta and drains into the IVC (6 cases—6%). | Not mentioned. | USA | Not specified | Left |
| Klemm, 2005 [67] | Observational N = 86 | Retroaortic LRV (1 case). | Not mentioned. | Germany | 86 females | Left |
| Janschek, 2004 [7] | Observational N = 119 | Circumaortic LRV (7 cases—6%). Retroaortic LRV (3 cases—2.5%). Double LRV (7 cases—5.9%), triple (1 case—0.8%). Double RRV (21 cases—18%), triple (6 cases—5%). | Not mentioned. | Austria | 58 males 61 females | Bilateral |
| Lin, 2004 [68] | Observational N = 170 | Circumaortic LRV (16 cases—9.4%). Retroaortic LRV (2 cases—1.2%). | Groups 1 and 2 were similar in operation time (p = 0.90), blood loss (p = 0.45), warm ischemia time (p = 0.14), and hospital stay (p = 0.45). | USA | Not specified | Left |
| Yeh, 2004 [69] | Observational N = 186 | Precaval RRV (9 cases—4.8%). | Not mentioned. | USA | Not specified | Right |
| Yesidag, 2004 [70] | Observational N = 1003 | Circumaortic LRV (23 cases—3.2%). Retroaortic LRV (9 cases—0.9%). | Not mentioned. | Turkey | Not specified | Left |
| Senecail et al., 2003 [71] | Observational N = 2 | Circumaortic LRV (1 case). Retroaortic LRV (1 case). | Not mentioned. | France | 1 male 1 female | Left |
| Duques, 2002 [72] | Observational N = 34 | Circumaortic LRV (1 case—2.9%). Double LRV (3 cases—8.9%). | Not mentioned. | Brazil | 24 males 10 females | Left |
| Sebe et al., 2002 [73] | Observational N = 88 | Left adrenal vein that drains into a double RV (4 cases—4.5%). | Not mentioned. | France | Not specified | Bilateral |
| Aljabri, 2001 [74] | Observational N = 1788 | Circumaortic LRV (29 cases—1.62%). Retroaortic LRV (57 cases—3.18%). | Not mentioned. | Canada | 929 males 859 females | Left |
| Shindo, 2000 [75] | Observational N = 166 | Circumaortic LRV (1 case). | Not mentioned. | Japan | 3 males 1 females | Left |
| Yoshinag, 2000 [76] | Observational N = 203 | Retroaortic LRV (1 case). | Not mentioned. | Japan | Not specified | Left |
| Satyapal, 1999 [77] | Observational N = 1008 | Circumaortic LRV (301 cases—30%). Retroaortic LRV (71 cases—7.1%). Additional RV (60 cases—6%). | Not mentioned. | South Africa | Not specified | Left |
| Pozniak, 1998 [78] | Observational N = 205 | Circumaortic LRV (17 cases—8.3%). Retroaortic LRV (6 cases—2.9%). | Not mentioned. | USA | 90 males 115 females | Bilateral |
| Trigaux, 1998 [79] | Observational N = 1014 | Circumaortic LRV, (64 cases—6.3%). Retroaortic LRV (38 cases—3.7%). | The distance between the entrance to the IVC in case of a circumaortic variation and the distance in the case of retroaortic RV were not statistically different (p = 0.6). | Belgium | 572 males 442 females | Left |
| Baptista-Silva et al., 1997 [80] | Observational N = 342 | Circumaortic LRV (6 cases—1.75%). Retroaortic LRV (8 cases—2.3%). Double RRV (9 cases—2.63%), triple (3 cases—0.87%). Right gonadal vein draining into the RRV (1 case—0.3%). | Not mentioned. | Brazil | 134 males 208 females | Bilateral |
| Hicks, 1995 [81] | Observational N = 108 | Circumaortic LRV (11 cases—10%). Retroaortic LRV (2 cases—1.85%). Double LRV (5 cases—4.6%), triple (1 case—0.92%). Double RRV (18 cases—16.6%), triple (4 cases—3.7%). | No statistically significant difference between the 108 patients included and the 78 excluded regarding the indication for the procedure or demographic information such as sex, age, height, or weight. Renal venography was more sensitive in detecting both significant (p < 0.001) and insignificant (p < 0.001) abnormalities. | USA | 51 males 57 females | Bilateral |
| Kaufman, 1995 [82] | Observational N = 150 | Circumaortic LRV (8 cases—5%). Retroaortic LRV (10 cases—7%). Multiple RRV (12 cases—8%). | Not mentioned. | USA | Not specified | Bilateral |
| Satyapal, 1995 [83] | Observational N = 153 | Double RRV (40 cases—26%), triple (5 cases—3.2%). Double LRV (4 cases—2.6%). | Not mentioned. | South Africa | 131 males 22 females | Bilateral |
| Benedetti-Panici, 1994 [84] | Observational N = 309 | Circumaortic RV (3 cases—0.97%). | Not mentioned. | Italy | 309 females | Bilateral |
| Martinez-Almagro, 1992 [85] | Observational N = 116 | Retroaortic LRV (6 cases—5%). | Not mentioned. | Spain | 94 males 22 females | Left |
| Hoeltl, 1990 [3] | Observational N = 4520 | Circumaortic LRV (4 cases—0.08%). Retroaortic LRV (29 cases—0.6%). | Not mentioned. | Austria | Not specified | Left |
| Observational N = 354 | Circumaortic LRV (2 cases—0.5%). Retroaortic LRV (4 cases—1.2%). | |||||
| Observational N = 215 | Circumaortic LRV (2 cases—0.9%). Retroaortic LRV (6 cases—2.8%). | |||||
| Monkhouse, 1986 [86] | Observational N = 57 | Circumaortic LRV (2 cases—3.5%). Double RRV (1 case—1.7%). RRV drains into IVC lower than LRV (22 cases—38.5%). RRV drains into IVC upper than LRV (4 cases—7%). | Not mentioned. | UK | 25 embalmed (9 males and 16 females); 32 fresh postmortem (8 males and 24 females) | Bilateral |
| Mayo, 1983 [87] | Observational N = 1140 | Circumaortic LRV (1 case—0.08%). | Not mentioned. | Canada | Not specified | Left |
| Reed, 1982 [88] | Observational N = 433 | Circumaortic LRV (19 cases—4.4%). Retroaortic LRV (8 cases—1.8%). | Not mentioned. | USA | Not specified | Left |
| Alexander, 1981 [89] | Observational N = 1200 | Circumaortic LRV (3 cases—0.25%). Retroaortic LRV (1 case—0.08%). | Not mentioned. | USA | Not specified | Left |
| Beckmann, 1980 [90] | Observational N = 132 | Circumaortic venous ring (8 cases—6.06%). Retroaortic LRV (1 case—0.75%). Double RRV (13 cases—9.84%), triple (3 cases—2.27%). Right gonadal vein draining into the RRV (4 cases—3%). | Not mentioned. | USA | Not specified | Bilateral |
| Kramer, 1980 [91] | Observational N = 193 | Circumaortic RV (10 cases—5%). | Not mentioned. | South Africa | 140 males 53 females | Left |
| Lien, 1977 [92] | Observational N = 100 | Circumaortic LRV (10 cases—10%). Retroaortic LRV (2 cases—2%). | Not mentioned. | Norway | 100 males | Left |
| Goswami, 1976 [93] | Observational N = 1 | Double LRV. | Not mentioned. | USA | 1 female | Left |
| Royster, 1974 [94] | Observational N = 159 | Circumaortic LRV (1 case—0.6%). Retroaortic LRV (3 cases—1.8%), Double LRV (1 case—0.6%). | Not mentioned. | USA | Not specified | Left |
| Royster, 1974 [94] | Observational N = 228 | Circumaortic LRV (1 case—0.43%). Retroaortic LRV (2 cases—0.8%). | Not mentioned. | USA | Not specified | Left |
| Davis, 1968 [95] | Observational N = 270 | Circumaortic LRV (4 cases—1.5%). Retroaortic LRV (5 cases—1.8%). | Not mentioned. | USA | 9 males | Left |
| Ross, 1961 [96] | Observational N = 34 | Double RRV (7 cases—20.5%). Double LRV (1 case—3%). | Not mentioned. | Scotland | 16 males 18 females | Bilateral |
| Reis, 1959 [97] | Observational N = 500 | Circumaortic RV (30 cases—6%). Retroaortic LRV (12 cases—2.4%). Double LRV (4 cases—0.8%) Double RRV (51 cases—10.2%), triple (3 cases—0.6%). | Not mentioned. | USA | 437 males 63 females | Bilateral |
RV: renal vein; RRV: right renal vein; LRV: left renal vein; RLRV: retroaortic left renal vein; CLRV: circumaortic left renal vein; IVC: inferior vena cava.
Table 2.
Prevalence studies included.
| Author and Year | Total N | Prevalence | Multiple RV | RV Course (Circumaortic or Retroaortic) | RV Ramifications | Unusual Origin of RV |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pedrao, 2023 [13] | 1 | Multiple RV: 1 | 1 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Silva 2021 [14] | 1 | Multiple RV: 1 RV course: 1 | 1 | 1 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Pradeep, 2020 [15] | 188 | Multiple RV: 12 RV course: 4 | 12 | 4 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Salimy et al., 2020 [16] | 1 | Multiple RV: 1 | 1 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Fontana, 2018 [17] | 1 | Multiple RV: 1 RV course: 1 | 1 | 1 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Tatarano et al., 2019 [18] | 120 | RV course: 7 | Not mentioned | 7 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Dunnwald, 2019 [19] | 1 | Multiple RV: 1 | 1 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Shaheen, 2018 [6] | 50 | Multiple RV: 46 | 46 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Hassan, 2017 [20] | 63 | Multiple RV: 5 | 5 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Nambur, 2017 [21] | 60 | Multiple RV: 3 RV course: 7 | 3 | 7 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Ayaz, 2016 [22] | 222 | RV course: 13 | Not mentioned | 13 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Çınar, 2016 [23] | 504 | Multiple RV: 109 RV course: 47 | 109 | 47 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Duran, 2016 [24] | 23 | RV course: 2 | Not mentioned | 2 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Kumaresan, 2016 [25] | 100 | Multiple RV: 19 RV course: 4 | 19 | 4 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Pandya, 2016 [26] | 200 | Multiple RV: 66 RV course: 13 | 66 | 13 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Staśkiewicz, 2016 [27] | 996 | RV course: 99 | Not mentioned | 99 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Bouzouita et al., 2015 [28] | 71 | Multiple RV: 8 RV course: 1 | 8 | 1 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Heidler, 2015 [29] | 7929 | RV course: 61 | Not mentioned | 61 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Mazengenya, 2015 [99] | 1 | Multiple RV: 1 | 1 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Reginelli, 2015 [30] | 921 | Multiple RV: 94 RV course: 219 | 94 | 219 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Resorlu, 2015 [31] | 680 | Multiple RV: 46 RV course: 53 | 46 | 53 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Ballesteros, 2014 [33] | 312 | Multiple RV: 34 RV course: 3 | 34 | 3 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Boyaci, 2014 [34] | 746 | RV course: 73 | Not mentioned | 73 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Ferreira, 2014 [35] | 1 | Multiple RV: 1 RV course: 1 | 1 | 1 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Lavy et al., 2015 [36] | 1 | Multiple RV: 1 | 1 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Rashid, 2014 [37] | 100 | Multiple RV: 17 RV course: 8 | 17 | 8 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Șahin, 2014 [38] | 2189 | RV course: 50 | Not mentioned | 50 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Dilli, 2013 [39] | 1204 | RV course: 63 | Not mentioned | 63 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Poyraz, 2013 [41] | 1000 | RV course: 68 | Not mentioned | 68 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Tao, 2013 [42] | 378 | RV course: 15 | Not mentioned | 15 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Apisarnthanarak, 2012 [43] | 65 | Multiple RV: 24 RV course: 2 RV ramifications: 4 | 24 | 2 | 4 | Not mentioned |
| Atalar, 2012 [44] | 739 | RV course: 23 | Not mentioned | 23 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Bouali et al., 2012 [45] | 120 | Multiple RV: 24. RV course: 11 | 24 | 11 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Dilli, 2012 [46] | 2644 | RV course: 71 | Not mentioned | 71 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Gupta, 2011 [47] | 30 | Multiple RV: 2 RV course: 4 | 2 | 4 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Yi et al., 2012 [48] | 3 | RV course: 2 | Not mentioned | 2 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Costa et al., 2011 [49] | 254 | Multiple RV: 28 RV course: 4 | 28 | 4 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Kulkarni, 2011 [50] | 102 | Multiple RV: 7 RV course: 6 | 7 | 6 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Li et al., 2011 [51] | 61 | RV ramification: 51 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned | 51 | Not mentioned |
| Turkvatan, 2009 [53] | 59 | Multiple RV: 3 RV course: 5 | 3 | 5 | Not mentioned | 4 |
| Kaneko et al., 2008 [54] | 190 | Multiple RV: 25 | 25 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Mir et al., 2008 [55] | 1 | Multiple RV: 1 | 1 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Natsis, 2008 [56] | 319 | RV course: 8 | Not mentioned | 8 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Tombul, 2008 [57] | 60 | Multiple RV: 9 | 9 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Yagci, 2008 [58] | 783 | RV course: 42 | Not mentioned | 42 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Holt, 2007 [59] | 278 | RV course: 9 | Not mentioned | 9 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Karaman, 2007 [60] | 1856 | RV course: 85 | Not mentioned | 85 | Not mentioned | 89 |
| Karazincir, 2007 [61] | 277 | RV course: 16 | Not mentioned | 16 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Koc, 2007 [62] | 1120 | Multiple RV: 210 RV course: 115 | 210 | 115 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Raman, 2007 [63] | 126 | Multiple RV: 40 RV course: 13 | 40 | 13 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Namasivayam, 2006 [64] | 48 | Multiple RV: 14 RV course: 3 | 14 | 3 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Arslan, 2005 [65] | 1125 | RV course: 19 | Not mentioned | 19 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Kawamoto, 2005 [66] | 100 | RV course: 5 RV ramifications: 6 | Not mentioned | 5 | 6 | Not mentioned |
| Klemm, 2005 [67] | 86 | RV course: 1 | Not mentioned | 1 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Janschek, 2004 [7] | 119 | Multiple RV: 35 RV course: 10 | 35 | 10 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Lin, 2004 [68] | 170 | RV course: 18 | Not mentioned | 16 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Yeh, 2004 [69] | 186 | RV course: 9 | Not mentioned | 9 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Yesidag, 2004 [70] | 1003 | RV course: 32 | Not mentioned | 32 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Senecail et al., 2003 [71] | 2 | RV course: 2 | Not mentioned | 2 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Duques, 2002 [72] | 34 | Multiple renal vein: 3 RV course: 1 | 3 | 1 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Sebe et al., 2002 [73] | 88 | Multiple RV: 4 RV origin: 4 | 4 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned | 4 |
| Aljabri, 2001 [74] | 1788 | RV course: 86 | Not mentioned | 86 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Shindo, 2000 [75] | 166 | RV course: 1 | Not mentioned | 1 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Yoshinag, 2000 [76] | 203 | RV course: 1 | Not mentioned | 1 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Satyapal, 1999 [77] | 1008 | Multiple RV: 60 RV course: 372 | 60 | 372 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Pozniak, 1998 [78] | 205 | RV course: 23 | Not mentioned | 23 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Trigaux, 1998 [79] | 1014 | RV course: 102 | Not mentioned | 102 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Baptista-Silva et al., 1997 [80] | 342 | Multiple RV: 12 RV course: 14 RV ramifications: 1 | 12 | 14 | 1 | Not mentioned |
| Hicks, 1995 [81] | 108 | Multiple RV: 28 RV course: 13 | 28 | 13 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Kaufman, 1995 [82] | 150 | Multiple RV: 12 RV course: 18 | 12 | 18 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Satyapal, 1995 [83] | 153 | Multiple RV: 49 | 49 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Benedetti-Panici, 1994 [84] | 309 | RV course: 3 | Not mentioned | 3 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Martinez-Almagro, 1992 [85] | 116 | RV course: 6 | Not mentioned | 6 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Hoeltl, 1990 [3] | 5089 | RV course: 47 | Not mentioned | 47 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Monkhouse, 1986 [86] | 57 | Multiple RV: 1 RV course: 2 RV origin: 26 | 1 | 2 | Not mentioned | 26 |
| Mayo, 1983 [87] | 1140 | RV course: 1 | Not mentioned | 1 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Reed, 1982 [88] | 433 | RV course: 27 | Not mentioned | 27 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Alexander, 1981 [89] | 1200 | RV course: 4 | Not mentioned | 4 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Beckmann, 1980 [90] | 132 | Multiple RV: 9 RV course: 16 RV ramifications: 4 | 9 | 16 | 4 | Not mentioned |
| Kramer, 1980 [91] | 193 | RV course: 10 | Not mentioned | 10 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Lien, 1977 [92] | 100 | RV course: 12 | Not mentioned | 12 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Goswami, 1976 [93] | 1 | Multiple RV: 1 | 1 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Royster, 1974 [94] | 159 | Multiple RV: 2 RV course: 5 | 2 | 5 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Royster, 1974 [94] | 228 | RV course: 3 | Not mentioned | 3 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Davis, 1968 [95] | 270 | RV course: 9 | Not mentioned | 9 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Ross, 1961 [96] | 34 | Multiple RV: 8 | 8 | Not mentioned | Not mentioned | Not mentioned |
| Reis, 1959 [97] | 500 | Multiple RV: 58 RV course: 42 | 58 | 42 | Not mentioned | Notmentioned |
RV: renal vein.
Table 3.
Risk of bias of included studies. Risk of bias assessment according to the JBI critical appraisal checklist.
Table 3.
Risk of bias of included studies. Risk of bias assessment according to the JBI critical appraisal checklist.
| Author | JBI Q1 | JBI Q2 | JBI Q3 | JBI Q4 | JBI Q5 | JBI Q6 | JBI Q7 | JBI Q8 | Bias Risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dunnwald et al., 2019 [19] | Low | ||||||||
| Eid et al., 2013 [40] | Low | ||||||||
| Favaro et al., 2009 [52] | Low | ||||||||
| Ferreira et al., 2014 [35] | Low | ||||||||
| Yi et al., 2012 [48] | Low | ||||||||
| Goswami et al., 1976 [93] | Low | ||||||||
| Mazengenya et al., 2015 [99] | Low | ||||||||
| Mir et al., 2008 [55] | Low | ||||||||
| Pedrao, 2023 [13] | Low | ||||||||
| Salimy et al., 2020 [16] | Low | ||||||||
| Senecail et al., 2003 [71] | Low | ||||||||
| Silva, 2021 [14] | Low |
Table 4.
The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal checklist for case reports.
| (1) Were patient’s demographic characteristics clearly described? | Yes | No | Unclear | Not applicable |
| (2) Was the patient’s history clearly described and presented as a timeline? | Yes | No | Unclear | Not applicable |
| (3) Was the current clinical condition of the patient on presentation clearly described? | Yes | No | Unclear | Not applicable |
| (4) Were diagnostic tests or assessment methods results clearly described? | Yes | No | Unclear | Not applicable |
| (5) Was the intervention(s) or treatment procedure(s) clearly described? | Yes | No | Unclear | Not applicable |
| (6) Was the postintervention clinical condition clearly described? | Yes | No | Unclear | Not applicable |
| (7) Were adverse events (harms) or unanticipated events identified and described? | Yes | No | Unclear | Not applicable |
| (8) Does the case report provide takeaway lessons? | Yes | No | Unclear | Not applicable |
Overall appraisal: Include ▢ exclude ▢ seek further info ▢.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Valenzuela Fuenzalida, J.J.; Vera-Tapia, K.; Urzúa-Márquez, C.; Yáñez-Castillo, J.; Trujillo-Riveros, M.; Koscina, Z.; Orellana-Donoso, M.; Nova-Baeza, P.; Suazo-Santibañez, A.; Sanchis-Gimeno, J.; et al. Anatomical Variants of the Renal Veins and Their Relationship with Morphofunctional Alterations of the Kidney: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prevalence. J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13, 3689. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13133689
AMA Style
Valenzuela Fuenzalida JJ, Vera-Tapia K, Urzúa-Márquez C, Yáñez-Castillo J, Trujillo-Riveros M, Koscina Z, Orellana-Donoso M, Nova-Baeza P, Suazo-Santibañez A, Sanchis-Gimeno J, et al. Anatomical Variants of the Renal Veins and Their Relationship with Morphofunctional Alterations of the Kidney: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prevalence. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2024; 13(13):3689. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13133689
Chicago/Turabian StyleValenzuela Fuenzalida, Juan Jose, Karla Vera-Tapia, Camila Urzúa-Márquez, Javiera Yáñez-Castillo, Martín Trujillo-Riveros, Zmilovan Koscina, Mathias Orellana-Donoso, Pablo Nova-Baeza, Alejandra Suazo-Santibañez, Juan Sanchis-Gimeno, and et al. 2024. "Anatomical Variants of the Renal Veins and Their Relationship with Morphofunctional Alterations of the Kidney: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prevalence" Journal of Clinical Medicine 13, no. 13: 3689. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13133689
APA StyleValenzuela Fuenzalida, J. J., Vera-Tapia, K., Urzúa-Márquez, C., Yáñez-Castillo, J., Trujillo-Riveros, M., Koscina, Z., Orellana-Donoso, M., Nova-Baeza, P., Suazo-Santibañez, A., Sanchis-Gimeno, J., Bruna-Mejias, A., & Gutiérrez Espinoza, H. (2024). Anatomical Variants of the Renal Veins and Their Relationship with Morphofunctional Alterations of the Kidney: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prevalence. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 13(13), 3689. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13133689
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
