ArticleSurgical endoscopy2021
Donor wound satisfaction after living-donor liver transplantation in the era of pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2021. 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.
- Dexmedetomidine Cannot Attenuate Liver Injury and Improve Outcomes Following Laparoscopic Living Donor Hepatectomy: A Randomised Controlled Trial.Drug design, development and therapy · 2025Trial
- Insights from Seoul National University Hospital's experience: a systematic review of pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy progression.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2024Review
- A systematic review of the factors significantly influencing the quality of life of living liver donors.International journal of nursing sciences · 2023Review
- Pure laparoscopicAnnals of surgical treatment and research · 2022Article
- Pure Laparoscopic vs. Open Right Hepatectomy in Living Liver Donors: Bench-Surgery Time.Frontiers in surgery · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDonor safety and cosmetic outcome are the main concerns raised by most living-donors. Pure laparoscopic living-donor hepatectomy (PLLDH) can provide the balance between those concerns. No studies evaluated the donors' satisfaction after PLLDH. The aim of this study is to evaluate the donors' satisfaction after PLLDH compared with donors who underwent open approach.
methodsWe randomly assigned a questionnaire (Donor satisfaction questionnaire) to the donors, operated between 2011 and 2017, during their follow-up visits in the outpatient clinic. Donors who responded to the questionnaire were included in our study. Donors were divided into 3 groups: L group (conventional inverted L incision), M group (midline incision), and PL group (laparoscopic approach).
results149 donors were included in our study. L group included 60 donors (40.3%), M group included 39 patients (26.2%), and PL group included 50 patients (33.5%). There were no significant differences between the groups regarding preoperative and perioperative outcomes apart from shorter operation time in PL group and higher wound infection in M group. Body image scale was significantly better in PL group (p = 0.001). Cosmetic scale was significantly higher in PL group (p = 0.001). Regarding self-confidence scale, it was significantly higher in PL group (p = 0.001). There was no significant difference between the groups regarding the sense of dullness or numbness on the scar (p = 0.113).
conclusionPLLDH is safe and feasible for living-donor hepatectomy. Donors operated by pure laparoscopic approach have better satisfaction scores compared to conventional open approach.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32430524What 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.