World Journal of Urology

, Volume 36, Issue 4, pp 585–593 | Cite as

A randomized, prospective study of laparoendoscopic single-site plus one-port versus mini laparoscopic technique for live donor nephrectomy

  • Kyu Won Lee
  • Sae Woong Choi
  • Yong Hyun Park
  • Woong Jin Bae
  • Yong Sun Choi
  • U-Syn Ha
  • Sung-Hoo Hong
  • Ji Youl Lee
  • Sae Woong Kim
  • Hyuk Jin Cho
Original Article



To compare the clinical outcomes of laparoendoscopic single-site plus one-port donor nephrectomy (LESSOP-DN) and mini laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (MLDN).


A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted from December 2014 to February 2016 in donors scheduled for left donor nephrectomy. Donor and recipient demographics and clinical outcomes including pain scores and questionnaires (BIQ: body image questionnaire, SF-36, patient-reported overall convalescence) were also compared.


A total of 121 eligible donors were recruited, of which 99 donors who were scheduled to undergo an operation on their left side were randomized into LESSOP-DN (n = 50) and MLDN (n = 49) groups. There were no significant demographic differences between the two groups. The renal extraction time in the LESS-DN group was shorter than that in the MLDN group (75.89 ± 13.01 vs. 87.31 ± 11.38 min, p < 0.001). Other perioperative parameters and complication rates were comparable between the two groups. The LESSOP-DN group had a smaller incision length than the MLDN group (4.89 ± 0.68 vs. 6.21 ± 1.11 cm, p < 0.001), but cosmetic scores and body image scores were similar in the two groups (p = 0.905, 0.217). Donor quality of life (SF-36) and recovery and satisfaction data were comparable between the two groups. Delayed graft function (DGF) occurred in one recipient undergoing MLDN procedure (2.1%) and progressed to graft failure.


There were no differences in cosmetic satisfaction between groups despite the smaller incision size of LESSOP-DN. Safety parameters and subjective measures of postoperative morbidity were similar between the two groups.


Kidney transplantation Laparoscopy Minimally invasive surgery 



Laparoendoscopic single-site plus one-port donor nephrectomy


Mini laparoscopic donor nephrectomy


Body image questionnaire


Delayed graft function


RAND 36-item short-form health survey questionnaire


Quality of life


Warm ischemia time


Estimated blood loss


Length of stay


Hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy


Author contributions

KWL: data collection and analysis, manuscript writing. SWC: protocol development, data collection. YHP: data collection. WJB: data collection. YSC: data management. UH: data management. SH: data analysis. JYL: manuscript editing. SWK: manuscript editing. HJC: protocol and project development, manuscript editing



Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Kyu Won Lee, Sae Woong Choi, Yong Hyun Park, Woong Jin Bae, Yong Sun Choi, U-Syn Ha, Sung-Hoo Hong, Ji Youl Lee, Sae Woong Kim and Hyuk Jin Cho have no conflicts of interests or financial ties to disclose.

Ethical standards

All human studies have been approved by the appropriate ethics committee and have, therefore, been performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments. This study has been approved by our institutional review board (KC15EISI0015).

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. 1.
    Abecassis M, Bartlett ST, Collins AJ, Davis CL, Delmonico FL, Friedewald JJ, Hays R, Howard A, Jones E, Leichtman AB, Merion RM, Metzger RA, Pradel F, Schweitzer EJ, Velez RL, Gaston RS (2008) Kidney transplantation as primary therapy for end-stage renal disease: a National Kidney Foundation/Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (NKF/KDOQITM) conference. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 3:471–480. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cecka JM (2001) The UNOS renal transplant registry. Clin Transpl 1–18Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Opelz G, Wujciak T, Döhler B, Scherer S, Mytilineos J (1999) HLA compatibility and organ transplant survival. Collaborative Transplant Study. Rev Immunogenet 1:334–342PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Park YH, Min SK, Lee JN, Lee HH, Jung WK, Lee JS, Lee JH, Lee YD (2004) Comparison of survival probabilities for living-unrelated versus cadaveric renal transplant recipients. Transplant Proc 36:2020–2022. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Davis CL, Delmonico FL (2005) Living-donor kidney transplantation: a review of the current practices for the live donor. J Am Soc Nephrol 16:2098–2110. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ratner LE, Ciseck LJ, Moore RG, Cigarroa FG, Kaufman HS, Kavoussi LR (1995) Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. Transplantation 60:1047–1049. PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Irwin BH, Rao PP, Stein RJ, Desai MM (2009) Laparoendoscopic single site surgery in urology. Urol Clin N Am 36:223–235. (ix) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kaouk JH, Autorino R (2012) Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) and nephrectomy: current evidence and future perspectives. Eur Urol 62:613–615. (discussion 615–616) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kaouk JH, Autorino R, Kim FJ, Han DH, Lee SW, Yinghao S, Cadeddu JA, Derweesh IH, Richstone L, Cindolo L, Branco A, Greco F, Allaf M, Sotelo R, Liatsikos E, Stolzenburg JU, Rane A, White WM, Han WK, Haber GP, White MA, Molina WR, Jeong BC, Lee JY, Linhui W, Best S, Stroup SP, Rais-Bahrami S, Schips L, Fornara P, Pierorazio P, Giedelman C, Lee JW, Stein RJ, Rha KH (2011) Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery in urology: worldwide multi-institutional analysis of 1076 cases. Eur Urol 60:998–1005. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Autorino R, Brandao LF, Sankari B, Zargar H, Laydner H, Akça O, De Sio M, Mirone V, Chueh SC, Kaouk JH (2015) Laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) vs laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJU Int 115:206–215. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Greco F, Hoda MR, Alcaraz A, Bachmann A, Hakenberg OW, Fornara P (2010) Laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy: analysis of the existing literature. Eur Urol 58:498–509. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cho HJ, Choi SW, Kim KS, Park YH, Bae WJ, Hong SH, Lee JY, Kim SW, Hwang TK (2015) Laparoendoscopic single-site plus one-port donor nephrectomy: analysis of 169 cases. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 25:636–641. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cho HJ, Choi YS, Bae WJ, Bae JH, Hong SH, Lee JY, Kim SW, Hwang TK, Cho YH (2012) Two-port laparoscopic donor nephrectomy with simple retraction technique. Urology 80:1379–1382. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dunker MS, Stiggelbout AM, van Hogezand RA, Ringers J, Griffioen G, Bemelman WA (1998) Cosmesis and body image after laparoscopic-assisted and open ileocolic resection for Crohn’s disease. Surg Endosc 12:1334–1340. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD, de Santibañes E, Pekolj J, Slankamenac K, Bassi C, Graf R, Vonlanthen R, Padbury R, Cameron JL, Makuuchi M (2009) The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 250:187–196. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ware JE Jr (2000) SF-36 health survey update. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25:3130–3139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Canes D, Berger A, Aron M, Brandina R, Goldfarb DA, Shoskes D, Desai MM, Gill IS (2010) Laparo-endoscopic single site (LESS) versus standard laparoscopic left donor nephrectomy: matched-pair comparison. Eur Urol 57:95–101. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schweitzer EJ, Wilson J, Jacobs S, Machan CH, Philosophe B, Farney A, Colonna J, Jarrell BE, Bartlett ST (2000) Increased rates of donation with laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Ann Surg 232:392–400CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kurien A, Rajapurkar S, Sinha L, Mishra S, Ganpule A, Muthu V, Sabnis R, Desai M (2011) First prize: standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy versus laparoendoscopic single-site donor nephrectomy: a randomized comparative study. J Endourol 25:365–370. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Richstone L, Rais-Bahrami S, Waingankar N, Hillelsohn JH, Andonian S, Schwartz MJ, Kavoussi LR (2013) Pfannenstiel laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) vs conventional multiport laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: a prospective randomized controlled trial. BJU Int 112:616–622. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Aull MJ, Afaneh C, Charlton M, Serur D, Douglas M, Christos PJ, Kapur S, Del Pizzo JJ (2014) A randomized, prospective, parallel group study of laparoscopic versus laparoendoscopic single site donor nephrectomy for kidney donation. Am J Transplant 14:1630–1637. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dols LF, Ijzermans JN, Wentink N, Tran TC, Zuidema WC, Dooper IM, Weimar W, Kok NF (2010) Long-term follow-up of a randomized trial comparing laparoscopic and mini-incision open live donor nephrectomy. Am J Transplant 10:2481–2487. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wang PH, Liu WM, Fuh JL, Chao HT, Yuan CC, Chao KC (2009) Comparison of ultraminilaparotomy for myomectomy through midline vertical incision or modified Pfannenstiel incision—a prospective short-term follow-up. Fertil Steril 91:1945–1950. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Saito M, Tsuchiya N, Maita S, Numakura K, Obara T, Tsuruta H, Kumazawa T, Inoue T, Narita S, Horikawa Y, Yuasa T, Satoh S, Habuchi T (2011) What is the most preferred wound site for laparoscopic donor nephrectomy?: a questionnaire assessment. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 21:511–515. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Urology, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of MedicineThe Catholic University of KoreaSeoulRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Department of Urology, Incheon St. Mary’s Hospital, College of MedicineThe Catholic University of KoreaSeoulRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations