Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33122621›Full record

SynthesisAnnals of transplantation2020

Comparison of Surgical Techniques in Living Donor Nephrectomy: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.

Qi Xiao, Biqi Fu, Keqin Song, Sufen Chen, Jianfeng Li, Jiansheng Xiao

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative StudySystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Retroperitoneoscopic Left Live Donor Nephrectomy.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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Qi XiaoDepartment of Transplantation, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China (mainland).
Biqi FuDepartment of Rheumatology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China (mainland).
Keqin SongDepartment of Transplantation, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China (mainland).
Sufen ChenDepartment of Transplantation, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China (mainland).
Jianfeng LiDepartment of Transplantation, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China (mainland).
Jiansheng XiaoDepartment of Transplantation, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China (mainland).
First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University · CNNanchang University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND The aim of this study was to compare and evaluate surgical techniques used for living donor nephrectomy (LDN). MATERIAL AND METHODS We performed a meta-analysis to compare 4 surgical techniques: open LDN (OLDN), laparoscopic LDN (LLDN), hand-assisted LLDN (HALLDN), and robot-assisted LLDN (RLDN). RESULTS No significant differences were found among these surgical techniques in terms of BMI, donor postoperative complications, 1-year graft survival, and DGF. Compared to the OLDN, the other 3 surgical techniques preferred to harvest the left kidney. When the right kidney was chosen as a donor, OLDN was the first-choice surgical technique. EBL was significantly lower in the HALLDN, LLDN, and RLDN groups when compared to the OLDN group. However, operative time and WIT were significantly shorter in the OLDN group. The RLDN group had an increased rate of donor intraoperative complications and a significantly lower VAS on day 1. The OLDN group required more morphine intake than the LLDN group. The length of hospital stay was significantly longer and AR was significantly higher in the OLDN group than in the LLDN and HALLDN groups. CONCLUSIONS There are no significant differences in donor postoperative complications, recipient DGF, and graft survival among the 4 surgical techniques. OLDN reduces WIT and operation time, but increases EBL and AR. RLDN and LLDN reduce the length of hospital stay, morphine intake, and VAS, and thus accelerate recovery. However, RLDN is associated with increased intraoperative complications.

Indexed as

Kidney TransplantationLaparoscopyLiving DonorsBayes TheoremHumansKidneyNephrectomy

Identifiers

PMID33122621
PMCPMC7607668
OpenAlexW3094864994

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.