Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic vs Hand-Assisted Retroperitoneoscopic Living-Donor Nephrectomy: A Retrospective, Single-Center, Propensity-Score Analysis of 840 Transplants Using 2 Techniques

Outcomes and Cost Comparison of 3 Different Laparoscopic Approach for Living Donor Nephrectomy: A Retrospective, Single-Center, Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Analysis of 551 Cases

BACKGROUND

At our institution, we switched from hand-assisted retroperitoneal laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HRN) to hand-assisted transperitoneal laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HTN); we later switched to standard retroperitoneal laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (SRN). This study was performed to evaluate outcomes and hospital costs among the 3 techniques.

METHODS

This retrospective, observational, single-center, inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis study compared the outcomes among 551 cases of living donor kidney transplantation between 2014 and 2022.

RESULTS

After the inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis, there were 114 cases in the HRN group, 204 cases in the HTN group, and 213 cases in the SRN group. Donor complication rates were lowest in the SRN group but did not differ between the HRN and HTN groups (1.1 vs 4.4 and 5.9%, P = .021). Donors in the SRN group had the lowest serum C-reactive protein concentrations on postoperative day 1 (4.3 vs 10.5 and 7.8 mg/dL, P < .001) and the shortest postoperative stay (4.3 vs 7.4 and 8.4 days, P < .001). Donors in the SRN group had the lowest total cost among the 3 groups (8868 vs 9709 and 10,592 USD, P < .0001). Donors in the SRN group also had the lowest costs in terms of "basic medical fees," "medication and injection fees," "Intraoperative drug and material costs," and "testing fees." Furthermore, the presence of complications was significantly correlated with higher total hospital costs (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

SRN appeared to have the least invasive and complication, and a potential cost savings compared with the HRN and HTN.

Impact of the introduction of pure retroperitoneoscopic living-donor nephrectomy on perioperative donor outcomes: A propensity score matching comparison with hand-assisted laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy

INTRODUCTION

We previously reported that the outcomes of pure retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy are superior to those of hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy. Consequently, we introduced pure retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy in our hospital. Here, we compared perioperative outcomes between hand-assisted intra-abdominal laparoscopic donor nephrectomy and pure retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed data from 315 living-donor kidney transplantation procedures performed between October 2015 and December 2020 (213 involving hand-assisted intra-abdominal laparoscopic donor nephrectomy, October 2015 to June 2019; 102 involving pure retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy, May 2019 to December 2020). After propensity score matching, 90 transplantations were included in each group (n = 180 overall).

RESULTS

Donors in the pure retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy group had longer warm ischemia times (P < .001), lower serum C-reactive protein concentrations and white blood cell counts on postoperative day 1 (P < .001 and P < .001, respectively), and shorter postoperative stays (P < .001) than donors in the hand-assisted intra-abdominal laparoscopic donor nephrectomy group. Five (5.6%) modified Clavien-classifiable complications occurred in the hand-assisted intra-abdominal laparoscopic donor nephrectomy group; no complications occurred in the pure retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy group (P = 0.008). One recipient in the hand-assisted intra-abdominal laparoscopic donor nephrectomy group had donor-related delayed graft function. There were no significant differences between groups in recipient estimated glomerular filtration on postoperative day 7.

CONCLUSION

The introduction of pure retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy was safe and effective. Moreover, it was less invasive and less harmful for donors, compared with hand-assisted intra-abdominal laparoscopic donor nephrectomy; recipient outcomes were equivalent.

Outcomes and surgical complications following living-donor renal transplantation using kidneys retrieved with trans-peritoneal or retro-peritoneal hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy

The best minimally invasive procedure for living-donor kidney retrieval remains debated. Our objective was to assess trans-peritoneal (TP) and retro-peritoneal (RP) hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN). In this single-center retrospective study, we analyzed results from 317 living-donor renal transplants (RT) performed between 2008 and 2016. Donor and recipient outcomes were compared between TP-HALDN (n = 235) and RP-HALDN (n = 82). Conversion to open nephrectomy (0.4% vs 0%; P = 1.000), intra-operative complications (1.7% vs 1.2%; P = 1.000), and 1-year overall post-operative complications (11.9% vs 17.1%; P = .258) rates were similar in TP-HALDN and RP-HALDN. Overall surgical site infections were higher in RP-HALDN (6.1% vs 1.7%; P = .053), whereas incisional hernias were only recorded following TP-HALDN (3.4% vs 0%; P = .118). The duration of the procedure was 11-minute shorter for TP-HALDN than RP-HALDN (P < .001) but extraction time was equivalent (2, IQR 1.5-2.5 minutes; P = 1.000). RT following TP-HALDN and RP-HALDN showed comparable one-year death-censored allograft survival (97% vs 98.8%; P = .685), primary non-function (0.4% vs 0%; P = .290), delayed graft function (1.3% vs 4.9%; P = .077), and urological complications (2.6% vs 4.9%; P = .290) rates. In our series, donor and recipient outcomes were not substantially affected by the approach used for donor nephrectomy. TP-HALDN and RP-HALDN were both safe and effective.