ArticleSurgical endoscopy2020
A comparison of laparoendoscopic single-site surgery versus conventional procedures for laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a Japanese multi-institutional retrospective study.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical study on laparoscopic minimally invasive surgery and transumbilical single-port laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of benign ovarian tumours and its influence on ovarian functions.Journal of minimal access surgery · 2024Article
- A comparison of pre- and post-operative outcomes in living donors undergoing transperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy and open nephrectomy: a retrospective single-center study.Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors at 12 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeLaparoendoscopic single-site donor nephrectomy (LESSDN) is a feasible and effective procedure because of its non-invasiveness and better cosmetic outcomes. However, there have been few multi-institutional studies conducted by multiple surgeons on LESSDN. We retrospectively compared the clinical data and outcomes between LESSDN and conventional laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) at multiple institutes in Japan. MATERIALS AND
methodsFrom 2009 to 2015, the clinical data of 223 donors who underwent LESSDN and 151 donors who underwent LDN were collected from 10 institutes. All LESSDNs were performed transperitoneally, whereas LDNs were performed transperitoneally (P-LDN) in 75 patients and retroperitoneally (R-LDN) in 76 patients.
resultsIn the LESSDN group, the single-incision site was pararectal in 155 (69.5%) patients and umbilical in 65 (29.1%) patients. Multiple surgeons (one to eight per institute) performed the LESSDN. No significant differences were observed between the three groups regarding estimated blood loss and warm ischemic time. The operative time was significantly shorter in the LESSDN group than in the R-LDN group (p = 0.018). No significant differences were observed regarding the rates of blood transfusion, open conversion, visceral injuries, and postoperative complications. Furthermore, no significant differences were observed regarding the dose of analgesic and the rate of delayed graft function. One patient required open conversion due to injury to the renal artery. Selection of LESS procedure was not an independent risk factor for the median serum creatinine level of above 1.27 mg/dL in recipients at 1 year after kidney transplantation.
conclusionThe results showed the technical feasibility of LESSDN compared with the standard LDNs in a multi-institutional and multi-surgeon setting. A few observed non-negligible complications and the significantly higher levels of serum creatinine in patients who underwent LESSDN indicate that this procedure should be employed cautiously when performed by surgeons without ample experience in performing LESS procedures.
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.