Introduction: Donor nephrectomy (DN) is a unique surgical procedure in urological practice, as it involves exposing a healthy individual to the potential risks of surgery. This type of surgery exhibits heterogeneity in terms of approach (open, laparoscopic, or robotic), each with its unique set of advantages and disadvantages. Consequently, there is currently a lack of universally agreed upon clear guidelines. In these settings, this study aims to evaluate transplantation surgeons' knowledge through a real-life survey and compare it with data from published randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
Evidence acquisition: The study is divided into two parts, with the first part focusing on the outcomes of the real-life survey designed to assess surgeons' knowledge about different DN approaches and their real-world practices during the surgery. The second part involves a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs, specifically examining the outcomes of different surgical approaches to DN. The systematic review followed the PRISMA Guidelines and involved a search of PubMed and Web of Science for RCTs comparing the outcomes of different DN approaches. The risk of bias was assessed using the RoB-2 tool. The random effect model was mainly used to assess the mean difference of the included studies.
Evidence synthesis: The study was conducted between July 2021 and January 2022 and surveyed 50 surgeons, of which 35 participants (70%) completed the survey. Regarding various approaches to DN, 97.14% of surgeons reported having experience with live DN, and 45.72% performed over 15 cases per year. The most performed approach was pure laparoscopic DN (68.57%). Pure laparoscopic DN was the preferred approach for 77.42% of respondents. The review process resulted in 335 articles, of which 35 were eligible for inclusion in the systematic review. In summary, most studies found that laparoscopic approaches, including standard, hand-assisted, LESS-DN, and mini-LDN, resulted in less postoperative pain, better cosmetic, and quicker recovery times compared to open approaches. The main limitation of the current study is the heterogeneity of the included studies.
Conclusions: The study provides valuable insights into the practices of renal transplantation surgeons, offering a comprehensive comparison to level 1 studies (RCTs) in the field. It underscores the continued significance of ODN in contemporary practice, particularly in light of recommendations from the EAU guidelines on renal transplantation. This reaffirms the need to consider the advantages and disadvantages of various approaches, including factors such as cost, postoperative pain, and cosmetic outcomes. While robotic-assisted DN holds promise, their adoption remains variable, potentially due to limited robust evidence.