Hand assisted retroperitoneoscopic living donor nephrectomy in elderly donors

PURPOSE: We assessed the influence of HARDN on residual donor kidney and allograft function, invasiveness and morbidity in elderly living donors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 89 living donors underwent nephrectomy before September 2004 at our institution. The 18 donors who were 65 years or older included 4 of 27 with ODN and 14 of 62 with HARDN. RESULTS: In older (65 years or older) donors mean operative time, mean blood loss and warm ischemia time in the HARDN group did not differ from those in the ODN group. None of the donors had major complications. Older donors with HARDN had a tendency toward a shorter hospital stay than those with ODN. Postoperative serum creatinine in older donors with HARDN was higher than that in younger donors with HARDN, while there was no difference in postoperative serum creatinine between older donors with HARDN and those with ODN. The frequency of allograft losses tended to be higher in older than in younger kidneys (4 of 18 vs 5 of 71, p = 0.054). However, most allograft losses did not seem to be related to surgical technique. CONCLUSIONS: Although further studies, especially with long-term followup, are necessary, HARDN is suggested to be safe and minimally invasive surgery even in elderly donors and to be comparable to open surgery in terms of morbidity, the residual donor kidney and allograft function.     

Hand-assisted laparoscopic and open living donor nephrectomy in Korea

BACKGROUND: We compared the results of hand-assisted laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy (LLDN) and conventional open living donor nephrectomy (OLDN). METHODS: The clinical data on 49 hand-assisted LLDN and 21 OLDN on the left side performed at two institutions in Korea from January 2001 to February 2003 were reviewed. Demographic data of donors and recipients were similar in the two groups. RESULTS: There was one conversion to an open procedure due to bleeding in the LLDN group. The median operation times (180 min in LLDN versus 170 min in OLDN) and warm ischemic times (2.5 min in LLDN versus 2.0 min in OLDN) in the two groups were similar. The estimated mean blood loss, duration of hospital stay and complication rate was also similar in the two groups. The LLDN group reported less pain (visual analog scale) postoperatively (4.1 versus 5.3), but this was not significant (P=0.058). The time to oral intake in the LLDN group was significantly longer by an average of 1 day (P=0.001). Return to work was sooner in the LLDN group (4.0 weeks versus 6.0 weeks; P=0.026). The recipient graft function was equivalent between the two groups. Hand-assisted LLDN appears to be a safe and effective alternative to OLDN. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that this technique may give the ability provide grafts of similar quality to OLDN, while extending to the donors the advantages of a traditional LLDN procedure.     

Glomerular hyperfiltration after unilateral nephrectomy in living kidney donors

Glomerular hyperfiltration, which is expected to occur after uninephrectomy, could potentially damage the non-transplanted donor kidney in living donor transplantation. We therefore prospectively measured renal function (inulin and PAH clearance), albumin excretion and blood pressure in the donors of 30 consecutive living donor kidney transplants before uninephrectomy (n = 29) and 1 week (n = 27) and 1 year (n = 16) after. Hyperfiltration was defined as: (post-nephrectomy inulin clearance)/(0.5 x pre-nephrectomy inulin clearance); hyper-perfusion was defined in an analogous way for PAH clearance. Hyperfiltration averaged 128 ± 5% [SEM] and hyperperfusion 133 ± 6% 1 week after uninephrectomy. Hyperfiltration was nearly unchanged (126 ± 7%) 1 year after nephrectomy, whereas hyperperfusion had significantly decreased to 118 ± 8% (P < 0.02). There was no significant change in blood pressure after nephrectomy, and no new cases of hypertension were observed during the 1-year follow-up. The degree of hyperfiltration did not correlate with donor age. Microalbuminuria > 30 mg/24 h was found in two donors 1 week after nephrectomy (one of which normalized at 1 year) and in one additional donor 1 year after nephrectomy. The degree of hyperfiltration did not correlate with albumin excretion rate. In conclusion, no adverse consequences of hyperfiltration were demonstrable during the 1-year observation period, but the prognostic role of occasional microalbuminuria should be further investigated.     

Therapeutic living donor nephrectomy

Therapeutic living donor nephrectomy is defined as a nephrectomy that is performed as therapy for an underlying medical condition. The patient directly benefits from having their kidney removed, but the kidney is deemed transplantable. The kidney is subsequently used as an allograft for an individual with advanced renal disease. Therapeutic donor nephrectomy can be successfully utilized for a heterogenous cohort of disease processes as both treatment for the donor and to increase the number of suitable organs available for transplantation. We describe four cases of therapeutic donor nephrectomy that were performed at our institution. Of the four cases, two patients elected to undergo therapeutic donor nephrectomy as treatment for loin pain hematuria syndrome; one after blunt abdominal trauma that resulted in complete proximal ureteral avulsion; and the fourth after being diagnosed with a small renal mass. Based on our data presented to the United Network for Organ Sharing Board of Directors (UNOS) in December 2015, living donor evaluation has been made simpler for patients electing to undergo therapeutic donor nephrectomy. UNOS eliminated the requirement for a psychosocial evaluation for these patients. As the organ shortage continues to limit transplantation, therapeutic donor nephrectomy should be considered when appropriate.     

"It was just an unconditional gift." Self reflections of non-directed living kidney donors

Non-directed living kidney donation is an important emerging type of donation, but there are concerns about ulterior motives and irrational decision-making. This study aimed to elicit the motivations and experiences of non-directed living kidney donors. Qualitative interviews were conducted with all 18 people who donated a kidney in the transplant unit of the South Island, New Zealand. Six major themes were identified: offering the chance of life (opportunity for normalcy in the recipient, good samaritanism), determination (resolute personal decision, rooted in stability, urgency, opportuneness), minimizing perceived risks (live with one kidney, trust in the medical system, physical and genetic resilience, taking chances, mental preparation, mild inconvenience), preserving anonymity (protecting donor anonymity, respecting recipient choice, receiving appreciation, knowing recipient outcomes, developing relationships), donor support (psychologic preparation, efficient coordination, reimbursement of expenses), and gaining benefits (improved fitness, empowerment and satisfaction, connectedness). Non-directed living kidney donors want to offer someone a chance of normal life; a decision driven by resoluteness and a sense of urgency. Kidney donation is perceived to offer improved fitness, and a sense of empowerment, satisfaction, and connectedness. Reluctance to consider non-directed donation programs solely on concerns of unrealistic or ill-motivations and potential feelings of donor regret appear unwarranted.     

Living donors' experiences 1 wk after donating a kidney

In Norway living kidney donors account for approximately 40% of all renal transplants. There is a shortage of information about how living kidney donors experience the donation process during the initial recovery from surgery. The aim of this study was to explore physical and psychosocial issues related to the experiences of living kidney donors 1 wk after open donor nephrectomy. A total of 12 living kidney donors participated in the study. Data were collected by individual in-depth interviews and analysed using empirical phenomenological method. Being a living kidney donor is a complex experience. The informants expressed strong feelings of responsibility and obligation concerning the recipients and had a positive attitude towards the donation. On the other hand, the donors experienced it strange to be a fit individual and go through a major operation. Several of the donors reported that it was painful to go through donor surgery and regarded the recovery period as troublesome. Some donors also reported the double role of being both a patient and a relative to be a stressful experience. This study reveals the importance of being aware of the complex situation of living kidney donors. Health professionals need to understand the nature of the donation process and the donors' needs. It is essential to focus on physical, mental and interpersonal factors when counselling potential living kidney donors.     

Open versus laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: a focus on the safety of donors and the need for a donor registry

PURPOSE: A review of the existing literature showed that the subject of live donor nephrectomy is a seat of underreporting and underestimation of complications. We provide a systematic comparison between laparoscopic and open live donor nephrectomy with special emphasis on the safety of donors and grafts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The PubMed literature database was searched from inception to October 2006. A comparison was made between laparoscopic and open live donor nephrectomy regarding donor safety and graft efficacy. RESULTS: The review included 69 studies. There were 7 randomized controlled trials, 5 prospective nonrandomized studies, 22 retrospective controlled studies, 26 large (greater than 100 donors), retrospective, noncontrolled studies, 8 case reports and 1 experimental study. Most investigators concluded that, compared to open live donor nephrectomy, laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy provides equal graft function, an equal rejection rate, equal urological complications, and equal patient and graft survival. Analgesic requirements, pain data, hospital stay and time to return to work are significantly in favor of the laparoscopic procedure. On the other hand, laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy has the disadvantages of increased operative time, increased warm ischemia time and increased major complications requiring reoperation. In terms of donor safety at least 8 perioperative deaths were recorded after laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. These perioperative deaths were not documented in recent review articles. Ten perioperative deaths were reported with open live donor nephrectomy by 1991. No perioperative mortalities have been recorded following open live donor nephrectomy since 1991. Regarding graft safety, at least 15 graft losses directly related to the surgical technique of laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy were found but none was emphasized in recent review articles. The incidence of graft loss due to technical reasons in the early reports of open live donor nephrectomy was not properly documented in the literature. CONCLUSIONS: We are in need of a live organ donor registry to determine the combined experience of complications and long-term outcomes, rather than short-term reports from single institutions. Like all other new techniques, laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy should be developed and improved at a few centers of excellence to avoid the loss of a donor or a graft.     

The donation process of living kidney donors.

BACKGROUND: The rates of both genetic and non-genetic living donors are increasing. However, previous research has almost exclusively explored the decision-making of genetic donors. Therefore, in this study both genetic and non-genetic donors are investigated with focus on their whole donation process. METHODS: Thirty-nine donors were interviewed the day before nephrectomy and 3 weeks afterwards. Twenty-three donors were genetic relatives, 16 were not. The interviews were analysed qualitatively, mainly by narrative structuring. RESULTS: All donors but one passed seven steps in the donation process. They included: (i) awareness of suffering; compassion and empathy; (ii) imminence of transplantation; recognition of oneself as potential donor; (iii) information acquisition and deliberation; (iv) attribution of responsibility to oneself; announcement of decision to donate; (v) examination; maintaining the decision; (vi) facing nephrectomy; and (vii) postoperative experiences. Two types of decision-making were displayed: immediate and later announcement of decision. Half the donors belonged to each type. Various relationship groups displayed different types. The examination period was the most stressful time, partly due to imperfect coordination and excessive time-wasting. One-third found postoperative pain the most painful experience ever. There was a lack of attention to regressive needs and to recognition of the deed. CONCLUSIONS: The two types of decision-making seem similar in ethical requirements. It is not a genetic or non-genetic relationship per se that determines what kind of decision the donors make. Psychological support, especially during Steps 5 and 7, should be improved and the donors included in a structured donation programme. Possible health care ambivalence toward living donation should not affect the donors.     

Comparison of hand-assisted laparoscopic and open donor nephrectomy in living donors

Objectives:   Although the advent of (hand-assisted) laparoscopic donor nephrectomy has had a positive effect on the donor pool, there is still some concern about the increased morbidity and safety of the laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. The aim of this study was to compare the results of hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALD) with open donor nephrectomy (ODN).
Methods:   A single-center non-randomized analysis of 202 living donor kidney transplantations (44 ODN, 158 HALD) between January 1995 and April 2006 was conducted.
Results:   The left kidney was harvested in 75% in the ODN group and 53% in the HALD group ( P  = 0.009). There was no conversion in the HALD group. Mean donor operative time for HALD (174 min) was longer than for ODN (124 min, P  < 0.001). The mean donor hospital stay (4.9 days vs 9.6 days, P  < 0.001) was significantly less for HALD. HALD had lower mean creatinine values at day 7 and 1 month ( P  = 0.001 and P  = 0.002) and lower urological complication rates ( P  = 0.02) compared with ODN. The 1-year graft survival rates of the ODN and the HALD group were 84% and 95% ( P  = 0.006), respectively.
Conclusion:   hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is a safe procedure for a donor nephrectomy with potential benefits compared with ODN.     

Subjective and objective comparison of critical care pathways for open donor nephrectomy

PURPOSE: In the era of minimally invasive techniques and cost containment, care pathways after donor nephrectomy are important. While open donor nephrectomy remains the established procedure, questions regarding the surgical approach, postoperative care and patient morbidity/dissatisfaction have surfaced. We compared results of standard and fast-track care pathways after donor nephrectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January 1998 and August 1999, 60 patients underwent open donor nephrectomy. By surgeon preference, patients received either ketorolac only (31), ketorolac plus morphine spinal (17) or patient controlled anesthesia (12). Data related to surgery, hospital course and cost were reviewed. Patients were surveyed regarding return to daily activities and groups were statistically analyzed. RESULTS: The mean dose per patient was 183 (ketorolac only), 180 (ketorolac plus morphine spinal) and 69 (patient controlled analgesia) mg. Median hospital stay was 2 days for the fast-track pathways (ketorolac only, ketorolac plus morphine spinal) compared to 3 days for the patient controlled analgesia group (p <0.001). Delayed oral intake was seen in 6% of patients on ketorolac only and 3% for those on ketorolac plus morphine spinal compared to 83% of the patient controlled analgesia group (p <0.001). Return to exercise (median weeks, p <0.79) was 2 for the ketorolac only group, 3.5 for ketorolac plus morphine spinal and 3.5 for patient controlled analgesia. Mean global cost was $9,394 for the ketorolac only group, $9,238 for ketorolac plus morphine spinal and $11,601 for patient controlled analgesia (p <0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Fast-track pathways significantly shortened hospital stay and quickened oral intake. Cost was significantly contained using new pathways. Resumption of daily activities was comparable among the groups. Comparisons of critical care pathways are required to optimize patient care after kidney donation. Prospective trials are needed to verify our results.     

Novel technique for hand assisted laparoscopic right donor nephrectomy

PURPOSE: Most surgeons divide the renal vein with a laparoscopic stapler during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. The right renal vein is usually shorter than the left one and using the stapler on the right side can result in a higher incidence of vascular complications for right kidney recipients. We present our experience with a new technique for hand assisted laparoscopic right donor nephrectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We designed a new vascular clamp to be completely inserted into the peritoneal cavity through the hand port incision in hand assisted laparoscopy. The renal vein with a cuff of the inferior vena cava was then excised. The defect in the inferior vena cava was sutured intracorporeally. RESULTS: A total of 80 kidney donors underwent hand assisted laparoscopic right donor nephrectomy using the new technique. Mean +/- SD operative time was 184 +/- 36 minutes. Operative time was decreased in the last 30 patients to 152 +/- 22 minutes. Intracorporeal suture time on the inferior vena cava was 16 +/- 3 minutes. No intraoperative complications were noted and there was no partial or total graft loss. Mean blood loss was 50 +/- 35 cc. Mean warm ischemia time was 4 +/- 2 minutes. Hospital discharge was on postoperative day 1 or 2 in 81% of patients. Graft function was normal in 78 recipients with a day 5 postoperative serum creatinine of 1.6 +/- 0.9 mg/dl. Two recipients showed delayed graft function and were treated medically. CONCLUSIONS: This technique for hand assisted laparoscopic right donor nephrectomy has proved to be safe and reproducible. We recommend practicing laparoscopic inferior vena cava suturing in the animal laboratory before performing it in humans.     

腹腔镜与开放手术活体取肾供者1年随访研究

目的 比较腹腔镜活体取肾(LDN)与开放手术活体取肾(ODN)的手术安全性及供者术后1年肾功能及血压状况. 方法LDN和ODN各30例,比较2组手术时间、热缺血时间、术中失血量、术后开始进食时间及术后开始下床活动时间,并根据改良Clavien分级系统统计2组围手术期并发症情况.对2组供者术前及术后第1天、1周、3、6个月、1年的血肌酐、血压、24 h尿蛋白定量水平和术前及术后6个月、1年时的肾小球滤过率(GFR)值进行统计比较. 结果 LDN组和ODN组手术时间分别为(98.65±13.6)、(96.3±19.5)min,热缺血时间为(90.6±15.1)、(86.4±12.3)s,2组术中失血量为(105.2±34.8)、(206.35±126.4)ml(P<0.01).术后开始进食及开始下床活动时间LDN组分别为(28.55±2.9)、(25.85±3.8)h,ODN组分别为(38.6±3.3)、(36.5±5.3)h(P值均<0.01).LDN和ODN组围手术期并发症总发生率分别为6.6%(2/30)和23.3%(7/30).术后第1天、1周、3个月、6个月、1年时血肌酐水平LDN组为(109.1±7.5)、(105.4士9.5)、(96.6±10.7)、 (89.4±11.5)、(91.6±9.3)μmol/L,ODN组为(107.3±9.6)、(103.3±8.4)、(95.4±9.1)、(90.5±13.6)、(90.35±11.7)μmol/L.2组术后6个月时平均GFR值分别为64.7、65.8 ml/min,术后1年时为65.9、67.5 ml/min,与术前相比差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05),术后1年与术后6个月时相比及2组问同期比较差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05).术后1年内2组平均24 h尿蛋白定量水平及血压与术前相比及2组间同期比较差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05). 结论 LDN具有创伤小,出血少、恢复快的优点,手术安全性与ODN相当,术后1年内对供者的肾功能及血压无明显不良影响.     

Technique, indications and outcomes of pure laparoscopic right donor nephrectomy

PURPOSE: Laparoscopic nephrectomy for living renal transplantation has emerged as the gold standard. Nevertheless, experience with this technique for procuring right kidneys is limited. We report our single institution results of pure laparoscopic right donor nephrectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy was initiated at the our institution in November 1999. Patient selection was initially limited to the left kidney but right surgery was started 2 years later after 97 operations had been performed. We prospectively acquired data on the donor and recipient, and specifically analyzed outcomes of the right kidneys. RESULTS: In a 40-month period 300 laparoscopic donor operations were performed. Overall 44 procedures (15%) were on the right side with the fraction greater (22%) after removing exclusion of the right kidney from laparoscopic selection criteria. In this cohort mean operative time was 170 minutes, significantly less than the 190 minutes for 50 contemporaneous left kidneys (p = 0.001). No case of right donor nephrectomy required open conversion and vessels were of adequate length. Donor and recipient complications were similar in the 2 groups without technical graft loss in the entire series. CONCLUSIONS: Our method of laparoscopic right donor nephrectomy yields excellent graft quality with adequate vascular length and without the need for elaborate modifications or hand assistance. Moreover, the right operation is technically easier and it achieved comparable donor morbidity and recipient renal function. With sufficient experience the right kidney should be procured laparoscopically when indicated.     

Design of a regulated system of compensation for living kidney donors

Abstract:  The pros and cons of a regulated system of financial incentives for living donors are being actively debated. To date, a detailed proposal on how such a system could work has not been developed. Herein, the specifics of a potential model, using the infrastructure already in place for deceased donor evaluation and allocation, are outlined.     

Mini-incision open donor nephrectomy as an alternative to classic lumbotomy: evolution of the open approach.

In Europe, the vast majority of transplant centres still performs open donor nephrectomy. This approach can therefore be considered the gold standard. At our institution, classic lumbotomy (CL) was replaced by a mini-incision anterior flank incision (MIDN) thereby preserving the integrity of the muscles. Data of 60 donors who underwent MIDN were compared with 86 historical controls who underwent CL without rib resection. Median incision length measured 10.5 and 20 cm (MIDN versus CL, P < 0.001). Median operation time was 158 and 144 min (P = 0.02). Blood loss was significantly less after MIDN (median 210 vs. 300 ml, P = 0.01). Intra-operatively, 4 (7%) and 1 (1%) bleeding episodes occurred. Postoperatively, complications occurred in 12% in both groups (P = 1.00). Hospital stay was 4 and 6 days (P < 0.001). In one (2%) and 11 (13%) donors (P = 0.02) late complications related to the incision occurred. After correction for baseline differences, recipient serum creatinine values were not significantly different during the first month following transplantation. In conclusion, MIDN is a safe approach, which reduces blood loss, hospital stay and the number of incision related complications when compared with CL with only a modest increase in operation time.     

Donor nephrectomy: A comparison of techniques and results of open, hand assisted and full laparoscopic nephrectomy

PURPOSE: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LAP) has been gaining more popularity among kidney donors and transplant surgeons. There have been some concerns about the function of kidney grafts harvested by laparoscopic procedures. We report our results of LAP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective data were collected for our donor nephrectomy operations. A telephone survey was done by an independent investigator on the impact of surgery on quality of life. Graft function was also evaluated by serial serum creatinine and mercaptoacetyltriglycine renal nuclear scans. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients were included in the study; of whom 55 underwent open donor nephrectomy (OD), 28 underwent LAP and 17 underwent hand assisted donor nephrectomy (HAL). Mean patient age was 39 +/- 12 years and it was similar in all groups. Mean operative time was 306 +/- 40 minutes for LAP, 294 +/- 42 minutes for HAL and 163 +/- 24 minutes for OD (p = 0.001). Laparoscopic operative time was decreased to 180 +/- 56 minutes for LAP and 155 +/- 40 minutes for HAL in the last 10 patients. Mean estimated blood loss was 200 +/- 107 cc for LAP, 167 +/- 70 cc for HAL and 320 +/- 99 cc for OD (p = 0.0001). Mean warm ischemia time was 3 +/- 2 minutes for LAP, 2 +/- 2 minutes for HAL and 2 +/- 1 minutes for OD (p = 0.002). Postoperative hospitalization was 2 +/- 2 days for LAP and 3 +/- 2 days for OD (p = 0.01). LAP required 30% less narcotic medicine than OD postoperatively (p = 0.04). There were no major complications in LAP cases and no complete or partial graft loss was noted. Mean followup was 7 months. Recipient creatinine was not significantly different for kidneys harvested by LAP or OD (p = 0.5). Diuretic mercaptoacetyltriglycine renograms were performed in all recipients 1 to 3 days after surgery and mean effective renal plasma flow was similar for the 3 groups (p = 0.9). According to telephone survey results 85% of LAP, 71% of HAL and 43% of OD patients reported a return to normal physical activity within 4 weeks after surgery. Similarly 74% of LAP, 62% of HAL and 26% of OD patients were able to return to work within 4 weeks after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Our data show no significant difference in graft function between LAP and OD. LAP and HAL were safe and complications were minimal. The main difference was that patients treated with LAP and HAL returned to normal physical activity and work significantly earlier than those who underwent OD.     

Factors associated with perceived donation‐related financial burden among living kidney donors

The perception of living kidney donation–related financial burden affects willingness to donate and the experience of donation, yet no existing tools identify donors who are at higher risk of perceived financial burden. We sought to identify characteristics that predicted higher risk of perceived financial burden. We surveyed 51 living kidney donors (LKDs) who donated from 01/2015 to 3/2016 about socioeconomic characteristics, predonation cost concerns, and perceived financial burden. We tested associations between both self‐reported and ZIP code–level characteristics and perceived burden using Fisher's exact test and bivariate modified Poisson regression. Donors who perceived donation‐related financial burden were less likely to have an income above their ZIP code median (14% vs. 72%, P = .006); however, they were more likely than donors who did not perceive burden to rent their home (57% vs. 16%, P = .03), have an income <$60 000 (86% vs. 20%, P = .002), or have had predonation cost concerns (43% vs. 7%, P = .03). Perceived financial burden was 3.6‐fold as likely among those with predonation cost concerns and 10.6‐fold as likely for those with incomes <$60 000. Collecting socioeconomic characteristics and asking about donation‐related cost concerns prior to donation might allow transplant centers to target financial support interventions toward potential donors at higher risk of perceiving donation‐related financial burden.     

Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: a comparison with the conventional open approach

PURPOSE: Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy is an emerging technique that has not yet gained widespread acceptance in the transplant community due to perceived technical difficulties. However, the potential advantages of decreasing donor morbidity, decreasing hospital stay and improving convalescence while producing a functional kidney for the recipient may prove to enhance living related renal transplantation. We report our early experience with laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 50 consecutive laparoscopic nephrectomies performed from October 1998 to May 2000 and compared them with 50 consecutive open donor nephrectomies, which served as historical controls. RESULTS: Donor age, donor sex and number of HLA mismatches did not differ statistically in the 2 groups. In the laparoscopic and open nephrectomy groups mean followup was 109 and 331 days (p = 0.0001), mean operative time was 234 and 208 minutes (p = 0.0068), mean estimated blood loss was 114 and 193 ml (p = 0.0001), and mean hospital stay was 3.5 and 4.7 days (p = 0.0001), respectively. Average renal warm ischemia time was 2.8 minutes in the laparoscopic nephrectomy group. Serum creatinine did not differ statistically in the 2 groups preoperatively or postoperatively at days 1 and 5, and 1 month. The rate of recipient ureteral complications in the laparoscopic and open nephrectomy groups was 2% (1 of 50 cases) and 6% (3 of 50), respectively (not significant). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy is an attractive alternative to open donor nephrectomy. Laparoscopic nephrectomy results in less postoperative discomfort, an improved cosmetic result and more rapid recovery for the donor with equivalent functional results and complications.