A Prospective Comparative Study of Renal Function in Live Renal Donors Who Underwent Open and Laparoscopic Nephrectomy
Urology Journal,
Vol. 22 No. 06 (2025),
11 Dey 2026
,
Page 318-324
https://doi.org/10.22037/uj.v22i.8591
Abstract
Introduction: Open nephrectomy surgery in a kidney donor involves pain and many risks after the surgery, which leads to the inability to perform normal activities. For this reason, today the laparoscopic nephrectomy method is preferred in order to avoid complications and to return to normal life sooner. However, it is very critical to assess the impact of modifying the surgical technique on the outcome of kidney donation. Thus, the present study was undertaken with the following specific objective: a comparative study of the renal profile of live kidney donors who have undergone open and laparoscopic nephrectomy.
Materials and Methods: The study in the present report was cross-sectional in nature. Participants included 91 kidney donors who had undergone either open nephrectomy (n = 46) or laparoscopic nephrectomy (n = 45). Data on the level of initial basic renal function, the duration of surgery, and the duration of hospitalization, together with the course of renal function in the 6 months after surgery, were collected. The data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, version 27 (SPSS version 27).
Results: The mean age of kidney donors was 29.4 ± 4.8 years, and all patients were male (100%). Body mass index and weight were comparable between the open and laparoscopic nephrectomy groups, with no statistically significant differences (P > 0.05). The mean duration of surgery in the open nephrectomy group (2.37 ± 0.30 hours) was significantly shorter than that in the laparoscopic group (3.37 ± 0.13 hours) (P < 0.001). The mean length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the laparoscopic group (3.31 ± 0.31 days) compared to the open group (4.06 ± 0.04 days) (P < 0.001). GFR decreased significantly in both groups at discharge and 6 months postoperatively compared to baseline (paired t-test, all P < 0.001), but there was no significant difference in GFR between groups at any time point (P > 0.05). Both groups experienced a significant postoperative decline in hemoglobin, with a greater reduction in the open group (−1.59 ± 0.79 g/dL) compared to the laparoscopic group (−1.05 ± 0.95 g/dL) (P = 0.004). White blood cell counts increased postoperatively in both groups, with no significant difference between them (P = 0.118). Surgical complications included transection of the superior polar artery in 5.5% of cases.
Conclusion: In laparoscopic nephrectomy, the time of surgery is longer, but the days of hospitalization after surgery do not differ and do not negatively affect the return of donor kidney function compared to the open method. Moreover, post-surgical problems have not been very frequent and are manageable in the best way possible.
- Nephrectomy, Renal cell carcinoma, Thrombus, Venous thrombosis/surgery
How to Cite
References
Malekmakan L, Tadayon T, Roozbeh J, Sayadi M. End-stage renal disease in the Middle East: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Iranian journal of kidney diseases. 2018;12:195.
Cheng H-T, Xu X, Lim PS, Hung K-Y. Worldwide epidemiology of diabetes-related end-stage renal disease, 2000–2015. Diabetes Care. 2021;44:89-97.
Lv J-C, Zhang L-X. Prevalence and disease burden of chronic kidney disease. Renal fibrosis: mechanisms and therapies. 20193-15.
Mousavi SS, Soleimani A, Mousavi MB. Epidemiology of end-stage renal disease in Iran: a review article. Saudi Journal of Kidney Diseases and Transplantation. 2014;25:697-702.
Wang JH, Skeans MA, Israni AK. Current status of kidney transplant outcomes: dying to survive. Advances in chronic kidney disease. 2016;23:281-6.
Wouk N. End-stage renal disease: medical management. American family physician. 2021;104:493-9.
Dalrymple LS, Katz R, Kestenbaum B, et al. Chronic kidney disease and the risk of end-stage renal disease versus death. Journal of general internal medicine. 2011;26:379-85.
Malekmakan L, Malekmakan A, Daneshian A, Pakfetrat M, Roosbeh J. Hypertension and diabetes remain the main causes of chronic renal failure in Fars Province, Iran 2013. Saudi Journal of Kidney Diseases and Transplantation. 2016;27:423-4.
Alvares J, Cesar CC, de Assis Acurcio F, Andrade EIG, Cherchiglia ML. Quality of life of patients in renal replacement therapy in Brazil: comparison of treatment modalities. Quality of life research. 2012;21:983-91.
Nemati E, Einollahi B, Pezeshki ML, Porfarziani V, Fattahi MR. Does kidney transplantation with deceased or living donor affect graft survival? Nephro-urology monthly. 2014;6.
Musquera Felip M, Peri Cusí L, Alcaraz Asensio A. Surgical aspects of living-donor kidney transplantation. Nefrología (English Edition). 2010;30:71-9.
Simforoosh N, Basiri A, Tabibi A, et al. Living unrelated versus related kidney transplantation: a 25-year experience with 3716 cases. Urology journal. 2016;13:2546-50.
Merrill JP, Murray JE, Harrison JH, Guild WR. Successful homotransplantation of the human kidney between identical twins. Journal of the American Medical Association. 1956;160:277-82.
Simforoosh N, Eslami A, Roshan YM, et al. Medium-term outcomes of COVID-19 infection after kidney transplantation for ongoing living and deceased kidney transplantations within the COVID-19 pandemic. Urology Journal. 2022;19:126-30.
Blohmé I, Fehrman I, Nordén G. Living donor nephrectomy: complication rates in 490 consecutive cases. Scandinavian journal of urology and nephrology. 1992;26:149-53.
Greenland S, Mansournia MA, Joffe M. To curb research misreporting, replace significance and confidence by compatibility: a Preventive Medicine Golden Jubilee article. Preventive medicine. 2022;164:107127.
Mansournia MA, Collins GS, Nielsen RO, et al. A checklist for statistical assessment of medical papers (the CHAMP statement): explanation and elaboration. British journal of sports medicine. 2021;55:1009-17.
Mansournia MA, Nazemipour M. Recommendations for accurate reporting in medical research statistics. The Lancet. 2024;403:611-2.
Gavrilovska-Brzanov A, Stavridis S, Dohchev S, et al. Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy in the Republic of North Macedonia. PRILOZI. 2023;44:65-71.
Carnabatu C, Tatum D, Paramesh A, Jeon H, Killackey M, Vijay A. Laparoscopic Living Donor Nephrectomy: A Single Center Comparison of Three Different Techniques. JSLS: Journal of the Society of Laparoscopic & Robotic Surgeons. 2023;27.
Simforoosh N, Basiri A, Tabibi A, Shakhssalim N, Hosseini Moghaddam SM. Comparison of laparoscopic and open donor nephrectomy: a randomized controlled trial. BJU international. 2005;95:851-5.
Ethier I, Cho Y, Hawley C, et al. Multicenter registry analysis comparing survival on home hemodialysis and kidney transplant recipients in Australia and New Zealand. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation. 2021;36:1937-46.
Shahbazov R, Maluf D, Azari F, et al. Laparoscopic Versus Finger-Assisted Open Donor Nephrectomy Technique: A Possible Safe Alternative. Experimental and Clinical Transplantation: Official Journal of the Middle East Society for Organ Transplantation. 2019;18:585-90.
Nicholson M, Kaushik M, Lewis G, et al. Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open donor nephrectomy. Journal of British Surgery. 2010;97:21-8.
Shokeir AA. Open versus laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: a focus on the safety of donors and the need for a donor registry. The Journal of urology. 2007;178:1860-6.
Fonouni H, Mehrabi A, Golriz M, et al. Comparison of the laparoscopic versus open live donor nephrectomy: an overview of surgical complications and outcome. Langenbeck's archives of surgery. 2014;399:543-51.
Carrión DM, Rivas JG, Bazán AA, et al. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy versus open donor nephrectomy: outcomes from a single transplant center. Archivos españoles de urología. 2019;72:508-14.
Ozturk SA, Yuksel Y, Erbis H, et al. Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: experience of high-volume center with 2,477 cases. Urologia internationalis. 2021;105:100-7.
- Abstract Viewed: 169 times
- 8591-pdf Downloaded: 24 times