You have accessJournal of UrologyCME1 May 2022MP36-15 ROBOTIC SINGLE-PORT VERSUS LAPAROSCOPIC DONOR NEPHRECTOMY: AN INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS Chih Peng Chin, Evan Garden, Micah Levy, Krishna Ravivarapu, Osama Al-Alao, Joseph Sewell Araya, Sander Florman, Antonios Arvelakis, Daniel Herron, Edward Chin, and Michael Palese Chih Peng ChinChih Peng Chin More articles by this author , Evan GardenEvan Garden More articles by this author , Micah LevyMicah Levy More articles by this author , Krishna RavivarapuKrishna Ravivarapu More articles by this author , Osama Al-AlaoOsama Al-Alao More articles by this author , Joseph Sewell ArayaJoseph Sewell Araya More articles by this author , Sander FlormanSander Florman More articles by this author , Antonios ArvelakisAntonios Arvelakis More articles by this author , Daniel HerronDaniel Herron More articles by this author , Edward ChinEdward Chin More articles by this author , and Michael PaleseMichael Palese More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002590.15AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Single-port robotic donor nephrectomy (SP RDN) with the da Vinci SP Surgical System is a novel minimally invasive surgical option for kidney donors that can offer comparable surgical outcomes to laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN). Here, we evaluate the largest case series to date comparing SP RDN to LDN. METHODS: Patient demographics, operative details, and postoperative outcomes were retrospectively collected from patients undergoing SP RDN and LDN at a single academic hospital from 9/2020 to 8/2021. Outcomes included pain scores (scale of 1-10), inpatient opioid use (converted to oral morphine milligram equivalent [MME]), renal function, and Clavien-Dindo complications. RESULTS: 54 and 10 patients underwent LDN and SP RDN, respectively. 41 (76%) LDN and 8 (80%) SP RDN involved the left kidney. There were no differences between groups in donor age, BMI, ASA status, or preoperative creatinine (all p>0.05). SP RDN and LDN had similar operative times (206 min vs 196 min, p=0.30); however, extraction (3.7 min vs 1.5 min, p<0.01) and warm ischemia times (5.0 min vs 2.5 min, p<0.01) were longer for SP RDN (Table 1a). SP RDN had greater estimated blood loss and greater decrease in hematocrit (SP RDN -9.0% vs LDN -7.1%, p<0.01) in the immediate postoperative period. Postoperative patient pain scores and inpatient MME requirements at 24 and 48 hours were similar (Table 1b). Significantly fewer SP RDN patients required postoperative intravenous opioids than LDN patients (SP RDN 50.0% vs LDN 83.3%, p=0.03). 35.2% of LDN and 50% of SP RDN patients were discharged at postoperative day 2 or later due to medical reasons (p=0.48). No difference was observed in recipient creatinine at 1-3 days, 90 days, and 6 months. Changes in donor creatinine at 90 days and 6 months, rates of donor postoperative complication, ER visits, and readmissions were similar between groups (Table 1c). 3 LDN (5.6%) and 2 (10%) SP RDN patients had Clavien-Dindo II complications; no donor from either group had a Clavien-Dindo >III complication. CONCLUSIONS: SP RDN is a safe alternative to LDN, offering similar donor postoperative clinical outcomes and recipient renal function up to 6 months. Further studies are needed to assess the long-term outcomes, postoperative opioid usage, and potential for improved cosmesis of SP RDN compared to other kidney donor surgical modalities. Source of Funding: None © 2022 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 207Issue Supplement 5May 2022Page: e603 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2022 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Chih Peng Chin More articles by this author Evan Garden More articles by this author Micah Levy More articles by this author Krishna Ravivarapu More articles by this author Osama Al-Alao More articles by this author Joseph Sewell Araya More articles by this author Sander Florman More articles by this author Antonios Arvelakis More articles by this author Daniel Herron More articles by this author Edward Chin More articles by this author Michael Palese More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF DownloadLoading ...