Laparoscopic to robotic living donor nephrectomy: Is it time to change surgical technique?

BACKGROUND: We aimed to explore differences in outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic donor nephrectomies (LDN). METHODS: This study compared robotic and laparoscopic surgical techniques for live donor nephrectomies in 153 patients at a single centre. RESULTS: Left nephrectomies were more common in both groups, but with no significant difference between the groups (76.6% vs. 77.6%, p = 0.88). The robotic donor nephrectomies (RDN) group experienced significantly less blood loss (60 vs. 134 mL, p < 0.01), but warm ischaemia time was similar between groups (3.2 vs. 3.7 min, p = 0.54).The RDN group had decreased subjective pain scores (3.54 vs. 4.21, p = 0.04) and shorter length of hospitalisation (2.22 vs. 3.04 days, p < 0.01).There were also fewer complications in the RDN than the LDN group (4 vs. 8, p = 0.186). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that RDN is a safe and alternative to LDN. Decreased blood loss and hospital stays and fewer complications may reflect decreased tissue manipulation with robotic assistance.

Robotic versus hand-assisted laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy: comparison of two minimally invasive techniques in kidney transplantation.

Robot-assisted donor nephrectomy (RDN) is increasingly used due to its advantages such as its precision and reduced learning curve when compared to laparoscopic techniques. Concerns remain among surgeons regarding possible longer warm ischemia time. This study aimed to compare patients undergoing robotic living donor nephrectomy to the more frequently used hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy (HLDN) technique, focusing on warm ischemia time, total operative time, learning curve, hospital length of stay, donor renal function and post-operative complications. Retrospective study comparing RDN to HLDN in a collaborative transplant network. 176 patients were included, 72 in RDN and 104 in HLDN. Left-sided nephrectomy was favored in RDN (82% vs 52%, p < 0.01). Operative time was longer in RDN (287 vs 160 min; p < 0.01), while warm ischemia time was similar (221 vs 213 secs, p = 0.446). The hospital stay was shorter in RDN (3.9 vs 5.7 days, p < 0.01).Concerning renal function, a slightpersistent increase of 7% of the creatinine ratio was observed in the RDN compared to the HLDN group (1.56 vs 1.44 at 1-month checkup, p < 0.01). The results show that RDN appears safe and efficient in comparison to the gold-standard HLDN technique. Warm ischemia time was similar for both techniques, whereas RDN operative time was longer. Patients undergoing RDN had a shorter hospital stay, this being possibly mitigated by differences in center release criteria. Donor renal function needs to be assessed on a longer-term basis for both techniques.