TY - JOUR
T1 - Impact of the introduction of pure retroperitoneoscopic living-donor nephrectomy on perioperative donor outcomes
T2 - A propensity score matching comparison with hand-assisted laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy
AU - Noguchi, Hiroshi
AU - Hisadome, Yu
AU - Sato, Yu
AU - Mei, Takanori
AU - Kaku, Keizo
AU - Okabe, Yasuhiro
AU - Nakamura, Masafumi
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 Japan Society for Endoscopic Surgery, Asia Endosurgery Task Force and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.
PY - 2021/10/1
Y1 - 2021/10/1
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85112314505&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85112314505&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/ases.12922
DO - 10.1111/ases.12922
M3 - Article
C2 - 33565265
AN - SCOPUS:85112314505
VL - 14
SP - 692
EP - 699
JO - Asian journal of endoscopic surgery
JF - Asian journal of endoscopic surgery
SN - 1758-5902
IS - 4
ER -