Rosario Almonte Nelson, Esqueda-Mendoza Antonio, Mendoza Arcila Manuel E, Rendon Dosal Hector, Marique Canche Norma Z
Urology Department, Hospital Regional de Alta Especialidad de la Peninsula de Yucatan del IMSS Bienestar, Merida, MEX.
Urology Department, Hospital Star Médica de Merida, Merida, MEX.
Cureus. 2025 Feb 17;17(2):e79191. doi: 10.7759/cureus.79191. eCollection 2025 Feb.
Kidney transplantation remains the only curative therapy for end-stage renal disease, with living donor nephrectomy playing a vital role in addressing the shortage of deceased donors. This study compares the effectiveness and safety of two minimally invasive surgical techniques for kidney graft procurement: pure laparoscopic nephrectomy and hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy.
This retrospective, observational study analyzed 50 living donor nephrectomies performed between 2021 and 2024 at a high-specialty hospital in Mexico. Sociodemographic, clinical, and surgical variables - including surgical time, bleeding, warm ischemia time, complications (Clavien-Dindo classification), and creatinine levels - were evaluated. Statistical analyses were conducted to assess differences between the two techniques.
The hand-assisted technique was performed in 31 (62%) cases, while the pure laparoscopic approach was used in 19 (38%). The mean surgical time (203.54 ± 62.72 min) and bleeding volume (258.78 ± 536.67 mL) showed no statistically significant differences between the techniques (p > 0.05). Complications occurred in four (8%) patients, with higher-grade complications (3B and 4B) observed exclusively in the pure laparoscopic group. Creatinine levels demonstrated no significant differences between groups at any postoperative interval.
Both techniques proved to be safe and effective for living donor nephrectomy, with comparable outcomes in surgical parameters and donor renal function. The hand-assisted technique offered advantages in terms of lower bleeding variability, while pure laparoscopic nephrectomy was associated with higher-grade complications in isolated cases.
Living donor nephrectomy is a safe and effective procedure using either technique, emphasizing the importance of institutional expertise and individualized surgical planning. Future research should focus on multicenter studies, donor quality of life, and the integration of advanced technologies such as robotic systems to optimize outcomes.
肾移植仍然是终末期肾病的唯一治愈性疗法,活体供肾切除术在解决 deceased 供体短缺问题中发挥着至关重要的作用。本研究比较了两种用于获取肾移植供肾的微创外科技术的有效性和安全性:单纯腹腔镜肾切除术和手辅助腹腔镜肾切除术。
这项回顾性观察性研究分析了 2021 年至 2024 年期间在墨西哥一家高级专科医院进行的 50 例活体供肾切除术。评估了社会人口统计学、临床和手术变量,包括手术时间、出血量、热缺血时间、并发症(Clavien-Dindo 分类)和肌酐水平。进行了统计分析以评估两种技术之间的差异。
手辅助技术用于 31 例(62%),单纯腹腔镜方法用于 19 例(38%)。两种技术之间的平均手术时间(203.54 ± 62.72 分钟)和出血量(258.78 ± 536.67 毫升)无统计学显著差异(p > 0.05)。4 例(8%)患者发生并发症,仅在单纯腹腔镜组观察到更高级别的并发症(3B 和 4B)。各术后时间段两组间肌酐水平无显著差异。
两种技术在活体供肾切除术中均被证明是安全有效的,手术参数和供体肾功能结果相当。手辅助技术在降低出血变异性方面具有优势,而单纯腹腔镜肾切除术在个别病例中与更高级别的并发症相关。
使用任何一种技术进行活体供肾切除术都是安全有效的,强调了机构专业知识和个体化手术规划的重要性。未来的研究应侧重于多中心研究、供体生活质量以及机器人系统等先进技术的整合以优化结果。