Premium
Comparative study of laparoscopic and mini‐incision open donor nephrectomy: have we heard the last word in the debate?
Author(s) -
Yadav Kunal,
Aggarwal Sandeep,
Guleria Sandeep,
Kumar Rajeev
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
clinical transplantation
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.918
H-Index - 76
eISSN - 1399-0012
pISSN - 0902-0063
DOI - 10.1111/ctr.12700
Subject(s) - medicine , cosmesis , nephrectomy , surgery , quality of life (healthcare) , laparoscopy , kidney , nursing
Objective Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy ( LDN ) is generally considered a better option than open donor nephrectomy ( ODN ) as it is associated with better cosmesis, less post‐operative pain and faster recovery. Mini‐incision donor nephrectomy ( MDN ) has proven to be an effective and less invasive modification of classic ODN . Our aim was to compare the peri‐operative outcomes and quality of life of donors following laparoscopic and mini‐incision ODN . Methods One hundred patients, underwent donor nephrectomy using laparoscopic approach (n = 50) or open mini‐incision approach (n = 50) over a period of 18 months. Data were entered into a prospective database and analyzed retrospectively. Results The mean operative (skin to skin) time for MDN , 53.9 min (range, 40–75 min), was significantly shorter than the 93.7 min (range, 75–140 min) for LDN . The laparoscopic donors had a longer hospital stay, warm ischemia time and higher operative and post‐operative cost. There was no significant difference in the pain scores, graft function, or quality of life between the two groups. Conclusions MDN compares well with the laparoscopic approach in terms of post‐operative pain, graft function and quality of life of donors. Significantly less operative time along with the reduced cost makes it a better option in our predominantly lower BMI patient population.