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

Abstract

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.