ArticleTurkish journal of medical sciences2020
Comparing the complications of laparoscopically performed simple, radical and donor nephrectomy
Article in Turkish journal of medical sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Not-so-simple nephrectomy: Comparative analysis of radical and simple nephrectomy in a high-volume tertiary referral center.International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association · 2024Article
- Is simple nephrectomy the right nomenclature? - Comparing simple and radical nephrectomy to find the answer.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2022Article
- 3D-Printed Cold Preservation Device in Renal Autotransplantation for the Treatment of a Patient With Renal Artery Stenosis.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bacground/aim: The aim of this study was to compare the complications of laparoscopic simple, radical and donor nephrectomies performed in a single center. Materials and methods: The study was conducted on 392 patients who underwent laparoscopic nephrectomy in University of Health Sciences, Ankara Türkiye Yüksek İhtisas Training and Research Hospital between January 1, 2008 and January 30, 2019. Clinical and laboratory parameters were recorded. Postoperative complications were recorded and graded as per Clavien-Dindo classification (CDC). All analyses were performed on SPSS v21.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Results: The mean age of the patients was 49.13 ± 15.45 years. The frequency of comorbidities and ASA scores were significantly higher in the laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (LRN) group than in the other groups (P < 0.001). Amount of bleeding was significantly lower in the laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) group compared to the other groups (P < 0.001). Classification of complications according to CDC showed that complications occurred in 17.01% (n = 25) of the LRN group, 7.02% (n = 12) of the laparoscopic simple nephrectomy (LSN) group, and 2.70% (n = 2) of the LDN group. Length of stay in hospital was significantly higher in the LRN group than in the LSN group (P < 0.001). Conclusion: In this study, the frequency of complications in LRN procedures was found to be higher than the LSN and LDN procedures. Patients with LRN may have more adverse health conditions before the operation. Considering the results of this study, variables such as patient and hospital characteristics, surgeon experience and skills should be evaluated in future studies. In addition, it is important to determine the frequency of complications using a standardized classification in order to enable correct interpretation of results.
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.