Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22071829›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2011

Laparoscopic versus open nephrectomy for live kidney donors.

Colin H Wilson, Aliu Sanni, David A Rix, Naeem A Soomro

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03717259 (Recovery of Short-term Renal Function in Post-transplant Patients Living Donor), which is not on this map. Cited by 59 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
11.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT03717259 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2016, after this paper: background citation

Recovery of Short-term Renal Function in Post-transplant Patients Living Donor: Comparison Between Graft Procurement Techniques - Open Surgery, Laparoscopic Assisted Hand and Pure Laparoscopic

TypeinterventionalSponsorInstituto Mexicano del Seguro SocialRan2016 to 2017Enrolled508ConditionsNephrectomyArmsOpen nephrectomy, Hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy, Laparoscopic nephrectomy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

59 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 188 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Robotic versus laparoscopic versus open nephrectomy for live kidney donors.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Guideline
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Colin H WilsonTransplant Surgery, The Freeman Hospital, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK.
Aliu Sanni
David A Rix
Naeem A Soomro
Freeman Hospital · GBSUNY Downstate Health Sciences University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWaiting lists for kidney transplantation continue to grow and live organ donation has become more important as the number of brain stem dead cadaveric organ donors continues to fall. The major disincentive to potential kidney donors is the pain and morbidity associated with open surgery.

objectivesTo identify the benefits and harms of using laparoscopic compared to open nephrectomy techniques to recover kidneys from live organ donors. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the online databases CENTRAL (in The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 2), MEDLINE (January 1966 to January 2010) and EMBASE (January 1980 to January 2010) and handsearched textbooks and reference lists. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) with open donor nephrectomy (ODN). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts for eligibility, assessed study quality, and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information where necessary. MAIN

resultsSix studies were identified that randomised 596 live kidney donors to either LDN or ODN arms. All studies were assessed as having low or unclear risk of bias for selection bias, allocation bias, incomplete outcome data and selective reporting bias. Four of six studies had high risk of bias for blinding. Various different combinations of techniques were used in each study, resulting in heterogeneity in the results. The conversion rate from LDN to ODN ranged from 1% to 1.8%. LDN was generally found to be associated with reduced analgesia use, shorter hospital stay, and faster return to normal physical functioning. The extracted kidney was exposed to longer warm ischaemia periods (2 to 17 minutes) with no associated short-term consequences. ODN was associated with shorter duration of procedure. For those outcomes that could be meta-analysed there were no significant differences between LDN or ODN for perioperative complications (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.47 to 4.59), reoperations (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.09 to 3.64), early graft loss (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.48), delayed graft function (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.52 to 2.30), acute rejection (RR 1.41, 95 % CI 0.87 to 2.27), ureteric complications (RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.69 to 3.31), kidney function at one year (SMD 0.15, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.41) or graft loss at one year (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.15 to 3.85). AUTHORS'

conclusionsLDN is associated with less pain compared with open surgery; however, there are equivalent numbers of complications and occurrences of perioperative events that require further intervention. Kidneys obtained using LDN procedures were exposed to longer warm ischaemia periods than ODN-acquired grafts, although this has not been reported as being associated with short-term consequences.

Indexed as

KidneyLiving DonorsHumansKidney TransplantationLaparoscopyNephrectomyPostoperative PainRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTime FactorsTissue and Organ Harvesting

Identifiers

PMID22071829
OpenAlexW1739375799

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.