Korean J Transplant.  2021 Oct;35(Supple 1):S79. 10.4285/ATW2021.OP-1035.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic versus retroperitoneal endoscopic donor nephrectomy: a matching analysis

• Thai MS
• Chau QT
• Hoang KC
• Ngo XT
• Nguyen TH
• Thai KL
• Van Dinh LQ
• Pham DM
• Nguyen TT

• KMID: 2521397
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4285/ATW2021.OP-1035

Abstract

Background
This study aims to assess safety and efficacy of introducing robotic-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (RALDN) to the standard retroperitoneal endoscopic living donor nephrectomy (RELDN).
Methods
Data were collected prospectively from 124 consecutive living kidney donors (93 for RELDN subgroup and 31 for RALDN subgroup) from February 2018 to December 2020. Donor baseline demographics, perioperative outcomes and recipient outcomes were recorded, and these parameters were compared between the two subgroups before and after propensity-score matching.
Results
For the entire group, mean age was 51.1±9.1 years; 42.7% were males; mean body mass index was 22.7±2.4 kg/m 2 ; and there were 109 left kidneys (88%). The following data of RELDN and RALDN was respectively recorded: operative time (213±43 vs. 216±39 minutes, P=0.721), warm ischemic time (4.7±1.2 vs. 4.9±1.4 minutes, P=0.399), postoperative complications (5.4% vs.6.5%, P=1), hemoglobin (g/L) drop (9.4±7.2 vs. 9.7±6.6, P=0.836), donor blood creatinine at 1 month (1.17±0.25 vs. 1.12±0.25 mg/ dL, P=0.325) and at 6 month (1.15±0.23 vs. 1.13±0.24 mg/dL, P=0.734). In post-propensity score matched analyses, there was significant differences between the two groups including opioid use after surgery (48.4% vs. 16.1%, P=0.014) and postoperative hospital stays (2.7±1.5 vs. 3.8±2.2 day, P=0.02).
Conclusions
RALDN could be safely introduced into a living donor program experienced in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.