Efficacy of Laparoscopic versus Open Donor Nephrectomy in the Living Kidney Donor: A Retrospective Cohort Study

被引:0
|
作者
Asabe, Sashikant [1 ]
Singh, Shivam [1 ]
Mhaske, Sunil [1 ]
Sabale, Vilas p [1 ]
机构
[1] Padmashree Dr DY Patil Med Coll, Dept Urol, Pune, Maharashtra, India
关键词
Graft survival; Kidney transplantation; Quality of life; Tissue and organ harvesting; QUALITY-OF-LIFE; COMPLICATIONS; OUTCOMES; PAIN;
D O I
10.7860/JCDR/2025/77112.20635
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Introduction: Renal transplantation is the optimal treatment for End-stage Renal Disease (ESRD), with living donor nephrectomy providing significant advantages over deceased donor renal transplantation. The present study compares the safety and efficacy of Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy (LDN) versus Open Donor Nephrectomy (ODN) in living kidney donors. Aim: To evaluate the efficacy of laparoscopic versus ODN. Materials and Methods: This retrospective cohort study was conducted in the Department of Urology at D.Y. Patil Medical College, Pune, Maharashtra, India, over a period of two years, from May 2022 to May 2024 involved 60 living kidney donors who underwent either LDN (30 patients) or ODN (30 patients). Data were collected from medical records, including demographic information, surgical details, and postoperative outcomes. Primary outcomes assessed included mean operative time, warm ischaemia time, amount of intraoperative blood loss, conversion rates to open surgery, and intra- as well as postoperative complications and difficulties encountered. Secondary outcomes included length of hospital stay, postoperative pain, recipient graft function, and donor renal function at the time of discharge. Quality of life was measured using a validated questionnaire at six months post- surgery. Data were analysed using the Student's t-test and Chisquare test with Statistical Packages of Social Sciences (SPSS) version 22.0, considering p<0.05 as statistically significant. Results: The mean age of the LDN and ODN patients was 50.10 +/- 10.69 years 50.17 +/- 7.88 years, respectively. Most patients were aged 51-60 years (40%) and predominantly female (65%). The ODN had a shorter mean operative time (186.50 +/- 27.04 vs. 256.23 +/- 25.53 minutes, p<0.001) and lower warm ischaemia time (3.30 +/- 1.36 vs. 9.10 +/- 3.82 minutes, p<0.001) compared to LDN. However, ODN resulted in greater blood loss (89.67 +/- 36.99 vs. 61.16 +/- 15.68 mL, p<0.001) and longer hospital stays (4.60 +/- 0.77 vs. 3.50 +/- 0.63 days, p<0.001). Peri- and postoperative complications were more frequent in ODN (n=8 Grade 1; n=1 Grade 3 complication). At six months, LDN donors reported better quality of life scores in physical function (85.0 vs. 78.0, p=0.02), vitality (78.0 vs. 70.0, p<0.05), social functioning (82.0 vs. 75.0, p=0.012), and mental health (80.0 vs. 73.0, p=0.006). Conclusion: The LDN offers superior surgical outcomes and quality of life for living kidney donors, promoting its continued use in renal transplantation. However, additional studies are necessary to validate these findings across various populations and clinical environments, especially in novice surgical centres.
引用
收藏
页码:OC6 / OC10
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Laparoscopic versus open donor nephrectomy for pediatric kidney recipients: A randomized controlled trial
    Basiri, Abbas
    Simforoosh, Nasser
    Heidari, Mohammad
    Moghaddam, Seyed Mohammad Mehdi Hosseini
    JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2006, 20 : A98 - A98
  • [42] Early graft function in kidney transplantation: Comparison between laparoscopic donor nephrectomy and open donor nephrectomy
    Percegona, L. S.
    Bignelli, A. T.
    Adarny, A., Jr.
    Machado, C.
    Pilz, F.
    Meyer, F.
    Hokazono, S. R.
    Riella, M. C.
    TRANSPLANTATION PROCEEDINGS, 2008, 40 (03) : 685 - 686
  • [43] The living kidney donor:: Laparoscopy versus open
    Facundo, C
    Guirado, L
    Díaz, JM
    Sainz, Z
    Alcaraz, A
    Rosales, A
    Solà, R
    NEFROLOGIA, 2005, 25 : 62 - 66
  • [44] A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY OF DONOR NEPHRECTOMY ON RENAL FUNCTION AND APPLICATION OF LIVING KIDNEY DONOR PROFILE INDEX (LKDPI)
    Aung, N.
    Chin, G.
    NEPHROLOGY, 2017, 22 : 87 - 87
  • [45] A controlled sequential evaluation of open donor nephrectomy versus classical and modified laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: An update
    Khauli, RB
    El-Hout, Y
    Hussein, M
    Dagher, FJ
    Medawar, W
    Houjaij, A
    Sawah, S
    Houjaij, A
    Daouk, M
    Uwaydah, M
    Abdelnoor, A
    TRANSPLANTATION PROCEEDINGS, 2005, 37 (07) : 2944 - 2946
  • [46] A meta-analysis of mini-open versus standard open and laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy
    Antcliffe, David
    Nanidis, Theodore G.
    Darzi, Ara W.
    Tekkis, Paris P.
    Papalois, Vassilios E.
    TRANSPLANT INTERNATIONAL, 2009, 22 (04) : 463 - 474
  • [47] Living-Donor Kidney Transplantation With Laparoscopic Nephrectomy From a Donor With Horseshoe Kidney: A Case Report
    Kumata, Hiroyuki
    Takayama, Tetsuro
    Asami, Kengo
    Haga, Izumi
    TRANSPLANTATION PROCEEDINGS, 2021, 53 (04) : 1257 - 1261
  • [48] Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy in Living Donors with a History of Abdominal Surgery: A Retrospective Cohort Study
    Hiramitsu, Takahisa
    Tomosugi, Toshihide
    Futamura, Kenta
    Okada, Manabu
    Goto, Norihiko
    Narumi, Shunji
    Uchida, Kazuharu
    Watarai, Yoshihiko
    ANNALS OF TRANSPLANTATION, 2021, 26
  • [49] Early and Late Graft Function after Laparoscopic Hand-Assisted Donor Nephrectomy for Living Kidney Transplantation: Comparison with Open Donor Nephrectomy
    Hoda, M. R.
    Hamza, A.
    Greco, F.
    Wagner, S.
    Fischer, K.
    Fornara, P.
    UROLOGIA INTERNATIONALIS, 2010, 84 (01) : 61 - 66
  • [50] Open and laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy in Switzerland:: a retrospective assessment of clinical outcomes and the motivation to donate
    Dahm, Felix
    Weber, Markus
    Mueller, Benjamin
    Pradel, Francoise G.
    Laube, Guido F.
    Neuhaus, Thomas J.
    Cao, Claude
    Wuethrich, Rudolf P.
    Thiel, Gilbert T.
    Clavien, Pierre-Alain
    NEPHROLOGY DIALYSIS TRANSPLANTATION, 2006, 21 (09) : 2563 - 2568