Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25552233›Full record

SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2015

Donor safety in live donor laparoscopic liver procurement: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Mohamed Bekheit, Philipe-Abrahim Khafagy, Petru Bucur, Khaled Katri, Ahmed Elgendi, Wael Nabil Abdel-Salam, Eric Vibert, El-Said El-Kayal

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Robotic donor hepatectomy: Are we there yet?World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2021
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Laparoscopic surgery: A qualified systematic review.World journal of methodology · 2015
    Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Mohamed BekheitMinimal Invasive Surgery Unit, Department of Surgery, El Kabbary General Hospital, El Kabbary, Alexandria, Egypt. dr_mohamedbekheit@hotmail.com.
Philipe-Abrahim KhafagyDepartment of Radiology, Le Raincy-Montfermeil Hospital, 93370, Monfermeil, France.
Petru BucurINSERM, Unit 785, Centre Hepatobiliaire, Paul Brousse Hospital, 94804, Villejuif, France.
Khaled KatriHPB Surgery Unit, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Alexandria Main University Hospitals, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt.
Ahmed ElgendiHPB Surgery Unit, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Alexandria Main University Hospitals, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt.
Wael Nabil Abdel-SalamHPB Surgery Unit, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Alexandria Main University Hospitals, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt.
Eric VibertINSERM, Unit 785, Centre Hepatobiliaire, Paul Brousse Hospital, 94804, Villejuif, France.
El-Said El-KayalHPB Surgery Unit, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Alexandria Main University Hospitals, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt.
Alexandria University · EGU-24 (Czechia) · CZGroupe Hospitalier Intercommunal Le Raincy Montfermeil · FRInserm · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDonor safety is a major concern in live organ donation. Live donor laparoscopic liver procurement is an advanced surgical procedure that is performed in highly specialized centers. Since its first report, not much progress has been endeavored for that procedure.

methodsWe planned to include all the randomized and comparative nonrandomized studies. Patients' population: live donors who are submitted to organ procurement via laparoscopy.

resultsOut of 5,636 records retrieved from the literature, only seven nonrandomized studies were included in this review, which encompassed 418 patients, 151 patients of whom underwent laparoscopic procurement. The quality scores for the included studies ranged from 66 to 76 %. The operative time was significantly shorter in the conventional open group (SD = 0.863, 95 % CI 0.107-1.819). Blood loss in the laparoscopic group was comparable with the conventional open approach (SD = -0.307, 95 % CI -0.807 to 0.192). In subgroup analysis, laparoscopy was protective against blood loss in laparoscopic parenchymal dissection (SD = -1.168, 95 % CI -1.758 to -0.577). The hospital stay was equal in both groups. Patients in laparoscopic group consumed fewer analgesics compared with conventional open group (SD = -0.33, 95 % CI -0.63 to -0.03). Analgesics use was lower in the laparoscopic group compared with the conventional approach. The rate of Clavien complications was equal in both groups (OR 0.721, 95 % CI 0.303-1.716). No difference was found between subgroup analysis based on the harvested liver lobe. Funnel plot and statistical methods used revealed low probability of publication BIAS.

conclusionsLive donor laparoscopic liver procurement could be as safe as the conventional open approach. Lower blood loss and lower consumtion of analgesics might be offered in the laparoscopic approach.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyLiver TransplantationLiving DonorsHumansNephrectomyPatient SafetyTissue and Organ HarvestingAbdominalDigestiveHepatobiliare (liver)LaparoscopicLive donorLiver transplantationSurgicalTransplantation

Identifiers

PMID25552233
OpenAlexW1974671766

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.