Transumbilical pure single-port laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

Laparoscopic Versus Finger-Assisted Open Donor Nephrectomy Technique: A Possible Safe Alternative

OBJECTIVES

Despite the present use ofthe laparoscopic technique for living-donor kidney nephrectomy, a search for alternative techniques continues.The aim of this study was to compare finger-assisted open donor nephrectomy versus laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study included retrospective data of 95 consecutive donors in a transplant center who were under going donor nephrectomy RESULTS: Donor demographics and clinical characteristics were generally similar between treatment groups. There were fewer female donors in the finger-assisted open donor nephrectomy treatment group (70.5% vs 29.5%; P = .003), but median body mass index was similar between groups (28 vs 26 kg/m²; P = .032). Patients who received laparoscopic donor nephrectomy had longer operative duration (3.5 vs 1.2 h; P < .001), longer combined length of incision (6 vs 5 cm; P = .001), andshorter median hospital length of stay (3 vs 4 days; P < .001). A left nephrectomy was preferred in both groups. Minor postoperative complications occurred less often in the finger-assisted open donor nephrectomy group (14.7% vs 31.6%; P = .0094). Donors who received laparoscopic nephrectomy had lower glomerular filtration rate at 1 year after donation (60 vs 89 mL/min/1.73 m²; P < .001) than donors who received finger-assisted nephrectomy. However, recipients of donors of both procedures had similar glomerular filtration rate at 1 year after transplant (65 vs 69 mL/min/1.73 m²; P = .5).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrated that finger-assisted open donor nephrectomy is a successful and safe alternative versus laparoscopic donor nephrectomy, providing favorable results for patients in terms of complications and outcomes.