PURPOSE: Laparoendoscopic single site surgery is a recent advance in minimally invasive urology. We report outcomes from our initial 100 consecutive laparoendoscopic single site live donor nephrectomies done by a single surgeon and provide a matched comparison of conventional laparoscopic live donor nephrectomies done by the same surgeon. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 2009 to 2010 at a tertiary referral center 100 consecutive laparoendoscopic single site live donor nephrectomies were performed by a single surgeon through a periumbilical incision using the GelPoint® system. No extraumbilical incisions or punctures were made. A retrospective review was performed using a prospectively managed database of standard perioperative and convalescent parameters. Comparison was made using a matched cohort of conventional live donor nephrectomies done by the same surgeon. RESULTS: Mean operative time was longer in the laparoendoscopic single site group (156 vs 130 minutes) but there was no difference in estimated blood loss or warm ischemia time. There was no difference in the complication rate between the 2 groups. Mean hospital stay and visual analog pain scores were similar in the groups but the laparoendoscopic group showed improved convalescence with faster return to work, normal activity and 100% recovery. Recipient graft function was equivalent in the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective, matched comparison laparoendoscopic single site live donor nephrectomy was associated with longer operative time but equivalent recipient graft function and improved convalescence. The benefits of laparoendoscopic single site surgery over conventional laparoscopy may be limited. However, with respect to live donor nephrectomy the benefits of laparoendoscopic single site surgery may nevertheless prove beneficial to decrease barriers to live organ donation. Copyright Â
PURPOSE: Laparoendoscopic single site surgery is a recent advance in minimally invasive urology. We report outcomes from our initial 100 consecutive laparoendoscopic single site live donor nephrectomies done by a single surgeon and provide a matched comparison of conventional laparoscopic live donor nephrectomies done by the same surgeon. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 2009 to 2010 at a tertiary referral center 100 consecutive laparoendoscopic single site live donor nephrectomies were performed by a single surgeon through a periumbilical incision using the GelPoint® system. No extraumbilical incisions or punctures were made. A retrospective review was performed using a prospectively managed database of standard perioperative and convalescent parameters. Comparison was made using a matched cohort of conventional live donor nephrectomies done by the same surgeon. RESULTS: Mean operative time was longer in the laparoendoscopic single site group (156 vs 130 minutes) but there was no difference in estimated blood loss or warm ischemia time. There was no difference in the complication rate between the 2 groups. Mean hospital stay and visual analog pain scores were similar in the groups but the laparoendoscopic group showed improved convalescence with faster return to work, normal activity and 100% recovery. Recipient graft function was equivalent in the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective, matched comparison laparoendoscopic single site live donor nephrectomy was associated with longer operative time but equivalent recipient graft function and improved convalescence. The benefits of laparoendoscopic single site surgery over conventional laparoscopy may be limited. However, with respect to live donor nephrectomy the benefits of laparoendoscopic single site surgery may nevertheless prove beneficial to decrease barriers to live organ donation. Copyright Â