Integrating robotic donor nephrectomy into contemporary living donor programmes: Evidence and practical considerations

Abstract

In this editorial, we comment on the study by Christou et al recently published in World Journal of Transplantation, which presents a matched comparative analysis evaluating robot-assisted vs hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy within a contemporary United Kingdom living-donor programme. Their work directly addresses a central question in the current evolution of minimally invasive donor surgery - the robotic platforms offer incremental advantages in precision, operative consistency, or ergonomic sustainability without compromising donor safety or graft function. The authors demonstrate that both techniques achieve comparable perioperative recovery, complication profiles, and early allograft outcomes. Although modest variations were observed in warm ischaemia time, postoperative stay, and workflow dynamics, these differences lacked clinical significance and did not influence donor or graft results. Importantly, the progressive reduction in console time with accumulating experience reflects the characteristic learning-curve trajectory seen across early robotic adoption, underscoring how proficiency stabilises as teams internalise the platform’s ergonomics and procedural choreography. Beyond the procedural metrics themselves, the study offers practical insight into how robotics may be integrated into mature donor programmes: As a complementary modality that supports technical reproducibility, preserves donor safety, and potentially enhances surgeon ergonomics. These findings therefore provide timely guidance for centres evaluating whether robotics can be incorporated alongside established laparoscopic pathways, balancing performance, training requirements, institutional resources, and long-term programme sustainability.

Key Words: Living donor nephrectomy; Robotic donor nephrectomy; Warm ischaemia time; Donor safety; Transplant programme sustainability; Surgical innovation

Core Tip: Robotic donor nephrectomy is increasingly explored as a refinement of minimally invasive living donor surgery. The matched analysis by Christou et al emonstrates that robot-assisted and hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy achieve equivalent donor safety, graft outcomes, and perioperative recovery, with early differences in warm ischaemia time or workflow showing no clinical impact. Importantly, the robotic platform offers advantages in precision, visual control, and surgeon ergonomics, with performance improving rapidly along a compressed learning curve. These findings provide practical guidance for programmes considering robotics as a complementary modality that enhances reproducibility and long-term sustainability without compromising donor protection.

This editorial refers to “Robot-assisted vs hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in the United Kingdom: Equivalent outcomes in the first national series” by Christou et al, 2026; https://dx.doi.org/10.5500/wjt.v16.i1.113075.

---

INTRODUCTION

Living donor kidney transplantation remains the cornerstone of renal replacement therapy, uniquely combining durable graft function with the psychosocial strength of voluntary donation[1]. The long-term viability of living donor programmes, however, rests on a non-negotiable principle: Donors must experience the lowest possible operative risk, the fastest achievable recovery, and uncompromising respect for their physical and emotional well-being[2]. Over the past two decades, this ethical imperative has catalysed a profound shift from open donor nephrectomy to minimally invasive approaches, fundamentally altering the trajectory of perioperative recovery and donor acceptance worldwide[3-5]. Within this transformative arc, robotic donor nephrectomy has emerged not simply as an incremental technological adaptation but as a potential next step in the maturation of minimally invasive donor surgery[6-8]. The platform offers enhanced dexterity, three-dimensional magnification, tremor filtration, and a stable, ergonomically favourable operating environment - attributes that theoretically align with the meticulous, high-stakes nature of living donor procedures. Yet the central question that has preoccupied early-adopter centres persists: Does the robotic platform meaningfully improve donor outcomes or programme performance, or does it merely repackage existing laparoscopic capabilities in a more technologically elaborate form?

The matched cohort analysis reported by Christou et al[9], recently published in the World Journal of Transplantation, represents an important contribution to this conversation, providing a carefully controlled comparison of robot-assisted donor nephrectomy and its established hand-assisted laparoscopic counterpart. Their demonstration of equivalent donor safety, comparable graft outcomes, and predictable reductions in console time with accumulating experience offers reassurance that robotics can be integrated without compromising the foundational elements of donor care. The slight prolongation in warm ischaemia time and modest differences in postoperative stay are clinically neutral findings, consistent with early-phase robotic experience across multiple international series[10-12]. More importantly, their data reveal the characteristic learning-curve signature seen in mature robotic programmes elsewhere - an initial period of protracted operative times followed by rapid stabilisation as surgeons internalise the platform’s ergonomics and movement dynamics[13].

Yet the true interpretive value of these findings becomes apparent only when they are situated within the broader scientific and organisational context of contemporary donor nephrectomy. Robotics must not be appraised solely through the prism of operative times or isolated perioperative metrics. Rather, its worth must be assessed in relation to deeper structural determinants: The long-term sustainability of the surgical workforce, the reproducibility of technical execution across variable anatomy, the ergonomic protections afforded to surgeons who may otherwise face career-limiting musculoskeletal strain, and the ability of institutions to cultivate a stable, well-trained pool of donor nephrectomy surgeons[14,15].

Seen through this wider lens, robotic donor nephrectomy represents not a replacement for existing laparoscopic expertise but a complementary modality that expands a programme’s technical bandwidth. It provides an additional pathway through which donor surgery can evolve - one that emphasises precision, consistency, and surgeon welfare without compromising the essential safety profile that underpins all living donor operations. This editorial therefore integrates the United Kingdom experience with the expanding global literature to construct a forward-looking conceptual framework for responsible adoption of robotics in living donor programmes - balancing technological promise with operational reality, and innovation with the ethical primacy of donor protection[9].

A NEW PHASE IN MINIMALLY INVASIVE DONOR SURGERY: FROM TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY TO PROGRAMME-LEVEL DECISION-MAKING

Minimally invasive donor nephrectomy was driven not only by convincing evidence of reduced postoperative pain, accelerated mobilisation, and earlier return to work, but also by the ethical imperatives embedded in donor care: A purely altruistic individual should not bear the burdens of surgical morbidity when safer alternatives exist. Conventional laparoscopy decisively reshaped this landscape, yet its success has also exposed inherent limitations - limitations that have become increasingly apparent as donor programmes grow in size, complexity, and dependence on a sustained surgical workforce[4,15].

Robotic systems provide a convergence of capabilities that directly address long-standing constraints in laparoscopic surgery. The first of these is enhanced precision in confined anatomic corridors, made possible through articulated, wristed instruments and intrinsic tremor filtration. These features allow controlled, fluid motion around delicate hilar structures and facilitate meticulous haemostasis, particularly in donors with complex vascular anatomy[6-8,16,17]. Second, three-dimensional, high-fidelity visualisation stabilises depth perception and spatial orientation, supporting deliberate dissection around the renal hilum and ureteropelvic junction. This visual precision becomes increasingly valuable as donor programmes broaden their anatomical inclusion criteria, incorporate obese or high-body mass index donors, or encounter variant vascular patterns[6-8,18,19]. Third, and perhaps most consequential over the long term, robotics offers meaningful ergonomic relief. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy demands prolonged periods of shoulder abduction, cervical flexion, and static lower-back loading - an occupational burden that has been well documented as a source of chronic pain and burnout among surgeons. In contrast, robotic platforms reposition the surgeon at a console, reducing strain on the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar axes. This shift from physical endurance to cognitive focus enhances sustainability, allowing surgeons to maintain performance and dexterity throughout lengthy careers. As living donor programmes increasingly rely on a limited pool of highly specialised surgeons, this ergonomic dimension becomes an operational necessity rather than a mere convenience[15,20].

Yet the translation of these theoretical advantages into programme-level benefit is neither automatic nor uniform. Institutions vary in volume, team composition, infrastructure, and cultural readiness to integrate new technology. For the United Kingdom national programme reported by Christou et al[9], robotic adoption followed a deliberately structured governance pathway: A monitored pilot phase, parallel maintenance of laparoscopic expertise, strict outcome surveillance, and stepwise expansion in case complexity. Such an approach is emblematic of responsible innovation. It underscores a foundational principle: Robotics should complement and extend an established donor programme, not supplant its existing strengths[5-8,21]. This phase of evolution - moving from technical feasibility to programme-level strategic decision-making - is where the future of donor nephrectomy will be shaped. Programmes must now shift their evaluative frameworks beyond isolated operative metrics toward an integrated understanding of how robotics influences sustainability, training, ergonomics, and long-term institutional capacity. It is at this intersection of technique, workforce, and organisational strategy that robotics may ultimately demonstrate its most enduring value[6-8,20,21].

INTERPRETING CONTEMPORARY EVIDENCE THROUGH A COMPARATIVE LENS

Across centres of varying volume and experience, robotic donor nephrectomy consistently demonstrates a characteristic profile: Warm ischaemia times that are modestly longer yet clinically inconsequential, operative durations that begin higher but exhibit clear downward trajectories with familiarity, and donor and graft outcomes that remain uniformly comparable to conventional laparoscopy, as demonstrated by Christou et al[9]. Multiple high-quality series - including early European reports and more recent North American and Asian experiences - document warm ischaemia times that are statistically greater in robotic procedures but seldom exceed increments that could influence graft viability. Studies by Windisch et al[10] and the large 250-case analysis by Zeuschner et al[11] are exemplary in this regard: Both demonstrate absolute differences measured in seconds rather than minutes, reaffirming that the biological resilience of the kidney far exceeds the minor temporal variations associated with robotic extraction[16-19,22,23].

Operative duration follows a predictable trajectory across robotic programmes. Initial cases reflect the natural acclimatisation period required to master robotic ergonomics, coordinate team choreography, and optimise docking and instrument strategies. However, once surgeons internalise the system’s movement dynamics, operative times consistently decline - often approaching or even surpassing established laparoscopic benchmarks. This pattern has been reproduced across early-adopter and high-volume centres, echoing the well-described learning-curve behaviour characterised in contemporary analyses of robotic donor nephrectomy[13,24-26].

When viewed collectively, these data reinforce a central message: Robotic donor nephrectomy does not seek to redefine the fundamental outcome profile of living donor surgery but to refine the process through which those outcomes are achieved. The stability of graft function, the preservation of donor safety, and the absence of clinically meaningful disadvantages across platforms all underscore the procedural neutrality of robotics with respect to biological endpoints[11,17-19,22,23]. Where robotics distinguishes itself is in the operational signature it imprints on the procedure - greater visual control, more deliberate dissection, reduced surgeon fatigue, and a reproducible technical cadence that supports consistent performance. These elements are not captured fully by single metrics such as warm ischaemia time or operative duration; they emerge through the cumulative rhythm of surgical practice and the long-term sustainability of the workforce[11-13,20,24-26]. In this broader context, the international literature converges on a coherent conclusion: Robotic donor nephrectomy is less a competitor to laparoscopy than an evolution of its principles, offering a platform that enhances precision, stabilises technique, and supports the future workforce without compromising the foundational safety profile that defines living donor surgery[16-19,22-26].

RECOVERY, COMPLICATIONS, AND DONOR EXPERIENCE

Across contemporary literature, a consistent theme emerges: While the surgical platforms differ, the postoperative experience of living kidney donors remains remarkably stable across techniques, underscoring the inherent robustness of donor safety pathways in modern transplant programmes. Several comparative series have demonstrated that robotic donor nephrectomy may confer modest advantages in early convalescence - reduced postoperative discomfort, earlier ambulation, and a smoother return to normal activity - particularly in centres with well-established perioperative protocols. These observations likely reflect the cumulative impact of articulated instrumentation, gentler tissue handling, and a more controlled operative field, which together reduce the subtle mechanical trauma inherent to laparoscopy[10-12,17,22,23,27].

Contemporary data consistently demonstrate no increase in major complications, low rates of readmission or reintervention, and stable postoperative renal function following robotic donor nephrectomy, even during early programme expansion. This is a striking finding when considered against the background of broader surgical innovation, where new technologies often struggle to replicate the safety record of established methods. The fact that robotic donor nephrectomy maintains such stability - even during phases of programme expansion or early learning - speaks to the intrinsic safety margins built into the procedure and the overarching principle that donor protection supersedes all technical considerations[11,12,17-19,22,23,27].

LEARNING-CURVE DYNAMICS: A CRITICAL DETERMINANT OF VALUE

A defining characteristic of robotic donor nephrectomy is its compressed learning curve, with operative performance improving rapidly as surgeons internalise the platform’s ergonomic and visual advantages. Evidence from high-volume centres demonstrates that, beyond an initial experience threshold, robotic procedures may match or exceed laparoscopic efficiency, with progressive reductions in operative time, greater precision around the renal hilum, and fewer interruptions for spatial reorientation[13,24-28]. As familiarity increases, procedural flow becomes more fluid, dissection more assured, and console times shorten in a predictable manner. This scalability is particularly relevant in multi-surgeon programmes, where robotics can harmonise technique and reduce operator-dependent variability[24-28].

Although the learning curve is shorter, it is initially steeper. Early cases must be supported by structured mentorship, careful case selection, and close intraoperative guidance. Institutions that formalise this process - through simulation training, dual-console mentoring, and staged procedural complexity - demonstrate the safest and most efficient transitions[13,25,28]. These dynamics underscore that the value of robotics cannot be captured solely by snapshots of operative time; it must be understood as a longitudinal investment in workforce capability, technical reproducibility, and programme stability. The learning-curve pattern observed by Christou et al[9], characterised by progressive reductions in console time without compromise in donor or graft outcomes, reinforces that early inefficiencies are transitional rather than structural[9,24-28].

CONCEPTUAL MECHANISMS UNDERLYING EQUIVALENT OUTCOMES

Despite clear ergonomic and workflow differences between laparoscopic and robotic donor nephrectomy, the equivalence of donor and graft outcomes across platforms is consistently documented. This equivalence is grounded in three mechanistic principles[10-13,16-19,22,23]. The essential components of donor nephrectomy remain unchanged and continue to define procedural safety and biological outcomes. These include meticulous hilar dissection, atraumatic handling of the renal vasculature and parenchyma, controlled vascular division, and swift, well-coordinated graft extraction. Whether performed through straight-stick laparoscopy or articulated robotic instruments, the guiding philosophy and technical priorities remain constant. In essence, the safety of donor nephrectomy depends more on surgical intent and experience than on the material architecture of the platform[10-13].

Robotic surgery introduces compensatory refinements that mitigate potential disadvantages associated with early adoption. Slightly longer warm ischaemia times, for example, may be offset by more stable visualisation of the renal hilum, reduced torque on vascular structures, precise tremor-filtered clip or stapler deployment, and smoother mobilisation of kidneys with multiple arteries or increased peri-renal fat[10-13]. While individually subtle, these micro-advantages accumulate to create a gentler and more controlled operative environment that is less susceptible to technical variability. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy has a long, shallow learning curve that can span dozens of cases before surgeons achieve mastery. Robotics, conversely, exhibits a steeper but shorter learning curve - initially slow, then rapidly accelerating. This nonlinear profile explains why early robotic cases may appear less efficient, yet ultimately reach a stable, high-performing plateau in fewer total procedures[24-28]. The essential choreography of donor nephrectomy is preserved, even as the physical experience of performing it evolves.

INTEGRATING ROBOTICS INTO MATURE DONOR PROGRAMMES: A STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK

The decision to integrate robotic donor nephrectomy into an established living-donor programme must transcend the traditional focus on operative metrics. Key comparative characteristics of hand-assisted and robotic donor nephrectomy are summarised in Table 1. It demands a systems-level assessment that considers not only surgical performance but also workforce sustainability, programme resilience, and institutional mission. Several domains shape this strategic calculus. Integration of robotic donor nephrectomy into established living-donor programmes should follow a phased, governance-driven approach rather than ad hoc adoption. Initial institutional assessment should evaluate existing hand-assisted laparoscopic outcomes, procedural volume across specialities, and workforce ergonomic needs. This should be followed by a structured pilot phase incorporating predefined donor selection criteria, real-time auditing of operative metrics, and formal safety oversight. Robust training infrastructure - including simulation-based preparation and dual-console mentoring - facilitates early skill acquisition and procedural consistency[6-8,20,21,24].

Table 1 Comparative characteristics of hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy vs robotic-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.

Ref.	Dimension	Hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy	Robotic-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy
Roh et al[6], 2018; Kawka et al[7], 2023; Lai et al[8], 2024; Windisch et al[10], 2022; Zeuschner et al[11], 2020; Papa et al[12], 2023; Khajeh et al[13], 2023; Higgins et al[14], 2017; Dalager et al[15], 2020	Operative field	Tactile feedback; hybrid open-lap access	Magnified 3D vision; tremor-filtered precision
	Instrumentation	Limited degrees of freedom	Full articulation via wristed instruments
	Ergonomics	High physical strain on the shoulders, neck, and lumbar spine	Seated console position; reduced musculoskeletal load
	Warm ischaemia time	Often shorter due to rapid extraction	Slightly longer in early cases; clinically negligible
	Learning curve	Long, shallow, experience-dependent	Steeper but shorter; rapid efficiency once established
	Complication rates	Low and stable	Low and equivalent
	Reproducibility across surgeons	Variable; dependent on manual skill	Higher consistency due to platform stability
	Institutional cost	Low per case	Higher capital + consumable costs
	Strategic role	Baseline technique in most programmes	An adjunct technique that expands capability

3D: Three-dimensional.

As proficiency stabilises, programmes may gradually expand case complexity while maintaining continuous surveillance of warm ischaemia time, console duration, and perioperative outcomes. Long-term consolidation requires harmonisation of technique across the surgical team, integration of robotics into routine donor selection pathways, and parallel preservation of laparoscopic capacity to ensure equity and flexibility. Continuous reassessment through periodic audit of donor outcomes, surgeon ergonomics, and resource utilisation is essential to ensure that robotic adoption remains aligned with patient safety, workforce sustainability, and institutional priorities[6-8,24-28].

Robotic systems can buffer against inter-surgeon variability by stabilising visualisation, motion scaling, and dissection technique. Articulated instruments and a magnified three-dimensional view reduce the manual dexterity gap between surgeons at different experience levels, enabling a more consistent standard of dissection and vessel management. In multi-surgeon programmes, where donor nephrectomy must be reproducible across operators, this reduction in variability becomes a meaningful asset[13,24-28]. A growing body of ergonomic studies documents the toll of conventional laparoscopy on musculoskeletal health, neck flexion, shoulder abduction, static lumbar loading, and repetitive micro-adjustments that accumulate over years of practice. These occupational stresses contribute to mid-career attrition, reduced procedural volume, and diminished quality of life among surgeons[15,20,29,30].

Robotic platforms, by contrast, transform the physical experience of surgery. Seated posture, minimal joint strain, reduced upper-limb tension, and stable eye-hand alignment create a sustainable environment where surgeons can perform high-precision procedures without enduring cumulative physical fatigue. In the long term, this ergonomic advantage may sustain productivity, preserve senior surgical leadership, and improve overall programme capacity[15,20,30]. Robotics alters the ecology of surgical training within living-donor programmes by enabling structured modular curricula, immersive simulation environments, and the dual-console capability that allows real-time, safe, side-by-side mentorship. Together, these features support consistent and predictable skill acquisition, even among trainees with heterogeneous prior experience. For transplant programmes seeking to expand or sustain their surgical workforce, this training architecture offers a clear pathway to cultivating donor nephrectomy expertise without compromising donor safety[13,25,28].

While procedural costs for robotic donor nephrectomy exceed those of laparoscopy, a narrow focus on per-case expenditure risks overlooking the broader economic ecosystem in which transplant programmes operate. Economic analyses of robotic surgery emphasise that platform cost reflects a composite of capital acquisition, ongoing maintenance, instrument utilisation, training requirements, and the distribution of robotic case volume across departments. Considered in isolation, these factors may appear unfavourable, but they do not fully capture the operational realities of transplantation programmes[14]. In the transplant context, economic value extends beyond direct procedural costs and includes accelerated donor recovery, enhanced recruitment potential for living donation, reduced surgeon injury and absenteeism, improved institutional reputation, and the ability to consolidate robotic expertise across multiple surgical disciplines. When viewed through this broader lens, the economic calculus becomes multidimensional, capturing not only expenditure but also long-term operational gains associated with a healthier surgical workforce and a more resilient programme[14,29].

THE LOW- AND MIDDLE-INCOME COUNTRIES PERSPECTIVE

In low- and middle-income settings, the calculus surrounding robotic donor nephrectomy is shaped by structural realities that differ markedly from high-income environments. Transplantation programmes often operate within constrained budgets, heterogeneous resource availability, and variable surgical volumes. Yet despite these pressures, several high-volume Indian centres have begun to incorporate robotic donor nephrectomy and even robotic kidney transplantation, demonstrating that strategic, context-specific adoption is both feasible and increasingly relevant[2,17,29].

Economic viability in low- and middle-income countries is intimately tied to volume concentration. Robotic systems become cost-efficient when utilised across multiple surgical specialities - urology, oncology, gynaecology, and general surgery - allowing the capital investment to be amortised over a sufficiently large procedural base. For many Indian institutions, this multidisciplinary utilisation has been the pivotal factor enabling early adoption[1,14,29]. Equally critical is the development of regional training hubs. High-volume academic centres possess the procedural throughput and faculty expertise necessary to serve as training nuclei for entire geographic regions. Such hubs reduce the need for costly overseas fellowships, promote standardisation of technique, and create a sustainable training ecosystem tailored to local realities[1,3,25,28].

Given resource constraints, selective adoption represents a pragmatic pathway. Robotics may be prioritised for anatomically complex donors, obese donors, or cases in which surgeon ergonomics become limiting. In these situations, the platform’s enhanced precision and stabilised visualisation may produce disproportionate benefit relative to cost[16-19,22,30]. Finally, innovative financial models - including public-private partnerships, philanthropic contributions, or cost-sharing agreements across departments - can mitigate the burden of capital expenditure, enabling centres to adopt robotics without compromising essential transplant services[3,14,29].

Thus, while robotics cannot yet be universally implemented across all low- and middle-income countries’ transplant programmes, a pattern is emerging: Where case volume is sufficient, multidisciplinary utilisation is feasible, and training infrastructures are robust, robotics can be responsibly integrated[21,25,28,29]. In such contexts, adoption is not merely aspirational - it becomes a rational, strategically aligned extension of programme development.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

As robotic donor nephrectomy continues to evolve, the field now stands at a threshold where incremental optimisation must give way to targeted advancement. Several domains offer particularly rich opportunities for refinement and innovation. Uniform definitions of proficiency remain elusive. Different centres employ disparate metrics - operative time, warm ischaemia duration, dissection quality, or surgeon self-assessment - leading to considerable heterogeneity. Establishing standardised, evidence-based learning-curve benchmarks would allow programmes to calibrate training progression, compare performance across institutions, and ensure that early adoption is conducted safely[24-28,31].

Robotic training in most disciplines is adapted from oncologic or general surgical curricula. Yet donor nephrectomy carries a uniquely stringent risk tolerance, demanding exquisite respect for tissue planes, vascular control, and extraction choreography. Tailored curricula - incorporating donor-specific simulations, perfusion scenarios, and complication-avoidance modules - would bring training into alignment with the ethical imperatives of living donation[25,28,31]. While ergonomic superiority is widely acknowledged, its downstream impact remains inadequately quantified. Future studies should integrate ergonomic metrics with measures of surgeon productivity, procedural longevity, burnout, and institutional workforce stability. Such analyses would clarify how ergonomic advantages translate into programme resilience[15,20,30].

Technological refinements have the potential to elevate donor safety. Integrating real-time perfusion mapping, haptic feedback, advanced vessel-analysis software, or semi-autonomous tasks could enhance hilar precision, improve identification of accessory arteries, and reduce the risk of thermal or traction injury. Purpose-designed robotic modules for donor nephrectomy may ultimately emerge as technology aligns more closely with procedural nuance[16-19,25,32]. Large, multi-centre registries represent the most powerful tool for elucidating rare complication profiles, variation in practice patterns, and long-term donor outcomes.

Such registries would enable granular risk stratification, help refine donor selection criteria, and support international collaboration aimed at benchmarking excellence in robotic donor surgery[33,34]. Donor-centred outcomes, including postoperative pain burden, convalescence quality, opioid requirements, and patient satisfaction, should also be integrated more systematically into future evaluations so that technological progress remains aligned with the lived experience of donation[27,29,35].

CONCLUSION

Living donor kidney transplantation remains the most durable and ethically sensitive form of renal replacement therapy, and its success depends on minimising donor morbidity while ensuring precise and reproducible surgery. The move from open to minimally invasive donor nephrectomy transformed donor experience, with robotics emerging as a natural extension that offers enhanced visualisation, articulated instruments, and meaningful ergonomic protection for surgeons. Comparative evidence consistently shows that robotic donor nephrectomy matches laparoscopic techniques in donor safety, graft outcomes, and recovery, while providing refinements that reduce operator variability, support surgeon longevity, and facilitate controlled dissection in anatomically complex donors. Early differences in warm ischaemia time or operative duration narrow as experience accumulates, reflecting the platform’s characteristic learning curve. Integration, however, must align with institutional priorities, training capacity, and economic feasibility. In low- and middle-income settings, selective, volume-based adoption supported by regional training hubs offers a pragmatic strategy.