Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25816148›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2015

A comparison of technique modifications in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Denise M D Özdemir-van Brunschot, Giel G Koning, Kees C J H M van Laarhoven, Mehmet Ergün, Sharon B C E van Horne, Maroeska M Rovers, Michiel C Warlé

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  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. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Retroperitoneoscopic Left Live Donor Nephrectomy.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
    Article
  20. 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

7 authors.

Denise M D Özdemir-van BrunschotDepartment of Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Giel G KoningDepartment of Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Kees C J H M van LaarhovenDepartment of Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Mehmet ErgünDepartment of Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Sharon B C E van HorneDepartment of Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Maroeska M RoversDepartment of Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Michiel C WarléDepartment of Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare the effectiveness of different technique modifications in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy.

designSystematic review and meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES: Searches of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Central from January 1st 1997 until April 1st 2014. STUDY

designAll cohort studies and randomized clinical trials comparing fully laparoscopic donor nephrectomy with modifications of the standard technique including hand-assisted, retroperitoneoscopic and single port techniques, were included. DATA-EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS: The primary outcome measure was the number of complications. Secondary outcome measures included: conversion to open surgery, first warm ischemia time, estimated blood loss, graft function, operation time and length of hospital stay. Each technique modification was compared with standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Data was pooled with a random effects meta-analysis using odds ratios, weighted mean differences and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals. To assess heterogeneity, the I2 statistic was used. First, randomized clinical trials and cohort studies were analyzed separately, when data was comparable, pooled analysis were performed.

results31 studies comparing laparoscopic donor nephrectomy with other technique modifications were identified, including 5 randomized clinical trials and 26 cohort studies. Since data of randomized clinical trials and cohort studies were comparable, these data were pooled. There were significantly less complications in the retroperitoneoscopic group as compared to transperitoneal group (OR 0.52, 95%CI 0.33-0.83, I2 = 0%). Hand-assisted techniques showed shorter first warm ischemia and operation times.

conclusionsHand-assistance reduces the operation and first warm ischemia times and may improve safety for surgeons with less experience in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. The retroperitoneoscopic approach was significantly associated with less complications. However, given the, in general, poor to intermediate quality and considerable heterogeneity in the included studies, further high-quality studies are required.

trial registrationThe review protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database before the start of the review process (CRD number 42013006565).

Indexed as

HumansKidney TransplantationLaparoscopyLiving DonorsNephrectomyPostoperative ComplicationsRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID25816148
PMCPMC4376908

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.