RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy has become the criterion standard for kidney retrieval from living donors. There is no information on the experience and outcomes of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in Pakistan. The objective of the study was to identify benefits and harms of using laparoscopic compared with open nephrectomy techniques for renal allograft retrieval. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this a retrospective study, patient files from May 2014 to September 2015 were analyzed. Patients were divided into 2 groups: those with open donor nephrectomy and those with laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Donor case files and operative notes were analyzed for age, sex, laterality, body mass index, warm ischemia time, perioperative and postoperative complications, surgery time, and length of hospital stay. Finally, serum creatinine patterns of both donors and recipients were analyzed. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 10 (SPSS: An IBM Company, IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA). RESULTS: Of 388 total donors, 190 (49%) had open donor nephrectomy and 198 (51%) had laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. For both groups, most donors were older than 25 years with male preponderance. Left-to-right kidney donation ratio was markedly higher in the laparoscopic group than in the open donor nephrectomy group, with 6 cases of double renal artery also included in this study. There were no significant differences in surgery times between the 2 groups, whereas the laparoscopic donor nephrectomy group had shorter hospital stay. Analgesic requirements were markedly shorter in the laparoscopic donor nephrectomy group. The 1-year graft function was not significantly different between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results for laparoscopic donor nephrectomy were comparable to those for open donor nephrectomy, and its acceptability was high. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy should be the preferred approach for procuring the kidney graft.