ArticleCurrent urology2025
A bidirectional cohort study to compare the outcomes of transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches in subjects undergoing laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy.
Article in Current urology, 2025. 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.
- Article
- Retroperitoneoscopic Left Live Donor Nephrectomy.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic SurgeonsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Laparoscopic transperitoneal donor nephrectomy (LTDN) is currently the standard procedure for renal donation from living donors. Only a handful of clinical studies have compared the outcomes of retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy (RDN) and LTDN. More robust data and systematic comparative analyses of the outcomes and complications of these 2 techniques are needed. This study aimed to elucidate the noninferiority of RDN to LTDN. Materials and methods: All live renal donors who underwent either RDN or LTDN at our institution during the period of January 2015 to March 2021 were considered subjects, excluding those who refused to participate in the study. This was a bidirectional cohort study. Demographic and clinical data were collected and analyzed using standard statistical methods. Statistical significance was set at Results: Our study included 89 subjects: 40 in the LTDN group and 49 in the RDN group. The RDN group had significantly shorter warm ischemia time (2.85 vs. 6.04 minutes), a lower fall in hemoglobin on postoperative day (POD)-1 (1.73 vs. 2.24 g/dL), lower estimated blood loss (601.93 vs. 797.27 mL), and lower pain on POD-1 (0.78 vs. 1.28). The improvement in recipient's estimated glomerular filtration rate on POD-30 was significantly higher in the RDN group (79.98 vs. 63.73 mL/min/1.73 m Conclusions: Our study, conducted in India, showed that the majority of RDN outcomes were better than those of LTDN. Hence, RDN is clearly non-inferior to the gold standard LTDN. A well-designed randomized controlled study is required to elucidate the statistical superiority of one approach over another.
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.