Background: Laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy is the standard technique at high-volume renal transplant centers. Laparoendoscopic single-site donor nephrectomy (LESS-DN) is a relatively novel minimally invasive surgery, which was differed to transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches. We present a retrospective analysis of our single-institution donor nephrectomy series comparing the transperitoneal to retroperitoneal LESS-DN with regards to operative outcomes.Materials and Methods: Ten patients who underwent LESS-DN from 2017–2019 were enrolled at our center. The same surgeon performed all cases. The two approaches were compared retrospectively and evaluated for differences in perioperative outcomes, including operation time, console time, blood loss, graft warm ischemia time, postoperative pain, length of stay (LOS), wound size, postoperative pain, and renal function post LESS-DN at less than one year.Results: Total operating time (315 ± 82.69 vs. 191 ± 24.9 min, p = 0.016), console time (224 ± 74.15 vs. 110 ± 19.84 min, p = 0.016), and LOS (8.4 ± 1.82 vs. 4.8 ± 1.10 days, p = 0.013) were significantly longer in the transperitoneal group. The wound size (44 ± 3.81 vs. 68.2 ± 13.5 mm, p = 0.038) was significantly smaller in the transperitoneal group. There was no significant difference in other parameters, including blood loss, warm ischemia time, and postoperative pain from day one to day three.Conclusions: Retroperitoneal LESS-DN results in similar perioperative outcomes as transperitoneal LESS-DN without compromising donor safety, and while providing a faster operation time, console time, shorter LOS, and a trend toward a shorter warm ischemia time.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.