Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31143770›Full record

SynthesisBioMed research international2019

Donor and Recipient Outcomes following Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Living Donor Nephrectomy: A Systematic Review.

Massimiliano Creta, Armando Calogero, Caterina Sagnelli, Gaia Peluso, Paola Incollingo, Maria Candida, Gianluca Minieri, Nicola Longo, Ferdinando Fusco, Vincenzo Tammaro and 3 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BioMed research international, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Dyslipidemia in Transplant Patients: Which Therapy?Journal of clinical medicine · 2022
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Robotic Single-Port Donor Nephrectomy with the da Vinci SP® Surgical System.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
    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

13 authors.

Massimiliano CretaDepartment of Neurosciences, Human Reproduction and Odontostomatology, University Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Armando CalogeroDepartment of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, University Federico II, Naples, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-2315-0610
Caterina SagnelliDepartment of Mental Health and Public Medicine, University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-6413-7810
Gaia PelusoDepartment of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, University Federico II, Naples, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-4512-4579
Paola IncollingoDepartment of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, University Federico II, Naples, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-5116-1451
Maria CandidaDepartment of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, University Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Gianluca MinieriDepartment of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, University Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Nicola LongoDepartment of Neurosciences, Human Reproduction and Odontostomatology, University Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Ferdinando FuscoDepartment of Neurosciences, Human Reproduction and Odontostomatology, University Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Vincenzo TammaroDepartment of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, University Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Concetta Anna DodaroDepartment of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, University Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Francesco MangiapiaDepartment of Neurosciences, Human Reproduction and Odontostomatology, University Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Nicola CarlomagnoDepartment of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, University Federico II, Naples, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsWe aimed to summarize available lines of evidence about intraoperative and postoperative donor outcomes following robotic-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (RALDN) as well as outcomes of graft and recipients.

methodsA systematic review of PubMed/Medline, ISI Web of Knowledge, and Scopus databases was performed in May 2018. The following search terms were combined: nephrectomy, robotic, and living donor. We included full papers that met the following criteria: original research; English language; human studies; enrolling patients undergoing RALDN.

resultsEighteen studies involving 910 patients were included in the final analysis. Mean overall operative and warm ischemia times ranged from 139 to 306 minutes and from 1.5 to 5.8 minutes, respectively. Mean estimated blood loss varied from 30 to 146 mL and the incidence of intraoperative complications ranged from 0% to 6.7%. Conversion rate varied from 0% to 5%. The mean hospital length of stay varied from 1 to 5.8 days and incidence of early postoperative complications varied from 0% to 15.7%. No donor mortality was observed. The incidence of delayed graft function was reported in 7 cases. The one- and 10-year graft loss rates were 1% and 22%, respectively.

conclusionsBased on preliminary data, RALDN appears as a safe and effective procedure.

Indexed as

Kidney TransplantationLaparoscopyLiving DonorsNephrectomyRobotic Surgical ProceduresAdultHumansIntraoperative CareLength of StayMiddle AgedOperative TimePostoperative PainTreatment OutcomeWarm IschemiaYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID31143770
PMCPMC6501265

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.