SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2015
Donor safety in live donor laparoscopic liver procurement: systematic review and meta-analysis.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- From laparoscopy to robotics in living donor hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative outcomes.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Different techniques for harvesting grafts for living donor liver transplantation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.World journal of gastroenterology · 2017Pooled it
- Future perspectives of robotics in liver transplantation.Updates in surgery · 2025Article
- Clinical Trial Study Protocol: A Prospective Blinded, Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial Protocol to Assess the Efficacy of Ultrasound-Guided Transversus Abdominis Plane Block on Postoperative Analgesia and Recovery Quality in Laparoscopic Donor Hepatectomy.Journal of pain research · 2024Article
- Impact of pure laparoscopic surgery on bile duct division of living donor left lateral section procurement.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2023Article
- Robotic donor hepatectomy: Are we there yet?World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2021Review
- Complex Surgical Reconstruction of Upper Pole Artery in Living-Donor Kidney Transplantation.Annals of transplantation · 2021Article
- Comparison of perioperative outcomes between pure laparoscopic surgery and open right hepatectomy in living donor hepatectomy: Propensity score matching analysis.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- A Single Center Experience for a Feasibility of Totally Laparoscopic Living Donor Right Hepatectomy.Journal of minimally invasive surgery · 2019Article
- Comprehensive guide to laparoscope-assisted graft harvesting in live donors for living-donor liver transplantation: perspective of laparoscopic vision.Annals of gastroenterology · 2017Article
- Laparoscopic surgery: A qualified systematic review.World journal of methodology · 2015Article
- From the left to the right: 13-year experience in laparoscopic living donor liver transplantation.Updates in surgery · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.