ArticleSurgical endoscopy2018
Transition from laparoscopic to retroperitoneoscopic approach for live donor nephrectomy.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- The learning curve for modified hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic living donor nephrectomy.BMC urology · 2024Article
- Robot-assisted laparoscopic retroperitoneal donor nephrectomy: a safe and efficient improvement.World journal of urology · 2024Article
- A comparison of laparoendoscopic single-site surgery versus conventional procedures for laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a Japanese multi-institutional retrospective study.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Article
- Retroperitoneoscopic Left Live Donor Nephrectomy.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic SurgeonsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLaparoscopic donor nephrectomy has become the standard of care due to multiple benefits. Currently, there are various techniques employed with two different approaches: transperitoneal (TLDN) or retroperitoneoscopic (RLDN) approach. There is a lack of data to determine which technique is superior, although the RLDN offers an anatomical advantage by avoidance of manipulation of the intraperitoneal organs. The aims of this study were to explore the merits of RLDN to TLDN and assess the learning curve of transition from TLDN to RLDN.
methodsFrom January 2010 to February 2017, 106 live donor nephrectomies were performed: 56 by TLDN and 50 by RLDN. Data on patient demographics, perioperative parameters, analgesic consumption, pain scores, and kidney graft function were collected and analysed. Data were compared with a Student's t test or Mann-Whitney test. A CUSUM analysis was performed to investigate the learning curve.
resultsAll live donor nephrectomies were successful with no conversion to open surgery. There was no blood transfusion, readmission, or mortality. No postoperative complications were graded over Clavien II. Kidney function was comparable in both groups. The follow-up period ranged from 3 to 78 months.
conclusionRetroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy is a safe approach with comparable results to TLDN. RLDN has an anatomical advantage as it avoids manipulating the intraperitoneal organs and retains a virgin abdomen and hence translates to a lower perioperative complication risk.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29218666What 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.