ArticleAnnals of transplantation2020
Evolution of Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy Techniques and Outcomes: A Single-Center Experience with More than 1000 Cases.
Article in Annals of transplantation, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Laparoscopic Living Donor Nephrectomy: Learning Curve Analysis Through 1446 Cases and Outcomes from 200 Consecutive Mastery-Phase Procedures-How I Do It.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Minimally Invasive Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy With a Pfannenstiel Incision Using Size-Reduced Trocars.Cureus · 2024Article
- Outcomes after 20 years of experience in minimally invasive living-donor nephrectomy.World journal of urology · 2022Observational
- Effectiveness of Ultrasound-Guided Retrolaminar Block and Erector Spinae Plane Block in Retroperitoneal Laparoscopic Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of pain research · 2022Article
- Role of laparoscopy in the era of robotic surgery in urology in developing countries.Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of IndiaReview
- "YouTube" for Surgical Training and Education in Donor Nephrectomy: Friend or Foe?Journal of medical education and curricular developmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) has evolved and has been established as a surgical standard of care for kidney transplantation. MATERIAL AND METHODS This study retrospectively reviews 1132 patients who underwent 4 different laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomies: hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy (HALDN), pure laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (PLDN), laparoendoscopic single-site plus 1-port donor nephrectomy (LESSOP-DN), and mini laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (MLDN). RESULTS The mean estimated blood loss (EBL) for the HALDN group was meaningfully higher than those of LESSOP-DN and MLDN (57.5±52.2 mL versus 21.0±30.0 mL versus 18.2±28.7 mL) (P<0.001). The EBL for PLDN (53.3±35.3 mL) was also significantly higher than those of LESSOP-DN and MLDN (P<0.001). Length of stay (LOS) for HALDN was longer than that for LESSOP-DN (4.2±1.2 day versus 4.0±1.4 days, P=0.002). There was 1 intraoperative open conversion in the HALDN group and 2 HALDN surgeries that required postoperative exploratory laparotomy. LESSOP-DN had 3 (0.8%) postoperative incisional hernias. For recipients, the results revealed no significant differences between all 4 groups in terms of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and the 1-year graft failure rate. CONCLUSIONS The LESSOP-DN group was associated with a shorter incision length than those of HALDN and PLDN and shorter LOS than that of HALDN. Recipient results showed no meaningful difference regarding laparoscopic donor nephrectomy technique.
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.