BACKGROUND: A systematic review was undertaken to assess the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic live-donor nephrectomy (LLDN) compared with open live-donor nephrectomy (OLDN). METHODS: Literature databases were searched from inception to March 2003 inclusive. Comparative studies of LLDN versus OLDN (randomized and nonrandomized) were included. RESULTS: There were 44 included studies, and the quality of the available evidence was average. There was only one randomized controlled trial and six nonrandomized comparative studies with concurrent controls identified. In terms of safety, for donors, there did not seem to be any distinct difference between the laparoscopic and open approaches. No donor mortality was reported for either procedure, and the complication rates were similar although the types of complications experienced differed between the two procedures. The conversion rate for LLDN to an open procedure ranged from 0% to 13%. In terms of efficacy, LLDN seemed to be a slower operation with longer warm ischemia times than OLDN, but this did not seem to have resulted in increased rates of delayed graft function for recipients. Donor postoperative recovery and convalescence seemed to be superior for LLDN, making it a potentially more attractive operation for living donors. Although in the short-term, graft function and survival did not seem to differ between the two techniques, long-term complication rates and allograft function could not be determined and further long-term follow-up is required. CONCLUSIONS: LLDN seems to be at least as safe and efficacious as OLDN in the short-term. However, it remains a technique in evolution. Further high-quality studies are required to resolve some of the outstanding issues surrounding its use, in particular, long-term follow-up of donor complications and recipient graft function and survival.
BACKGROUND: A systematic review was undertaken to assess the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic live-donor nephrectomy (LLDN) compared with open live-donor nephrectomy (OLDN). METHODS: Literature databases were searched from inception to March 2003 inclusive. Comparative studies of LLDN versus OLDN (randomized and nonrandomized) were included. RESULTS: There were 44 included studies, and the quality of the available evidence was average. There was only one randomized controlled trial and six nonrandomized comparative studies with concurrent controls identified. In terms of safety, for donors, there did not seem to be any distinct difference between the laparoscopic and open approaches. No donor mortality was reported for either procedure, and the complication rates were similar although the types of complications experienced differed between the two procedures. The conversion rate for LLDN to an open procedure ranged from 0% to 13%. In terms of efficacy, LLDN seemed to be a slower operation with longer warm ischemia times than OLDN, but this did not seem to have resulted in increased rates of delayed graft function for recipients. Donor postoperative recovery and convalescence seemed to be superior for LLDN, making it a potentially more attractive operation for living donors. Although in the short-term, graft function and survival did not seem to differ between the two techniques, long-term complication rates and allograft function could not be determined and further long-term follow-up is required. CONCLUSIONS: LLDN seems to be at least as safe and efficacious as OLDN in the short-term. However, it remains a technique in evolution. Further high-quality studies are required to resolve some of the outstanding issues surrounding its use, in particular, long-term follow-up of donor complications and recipient graft function and survival.
Authors: M Giessing; T F Fuller; S Deger; J Roigas; M Tüllmann; L Liefeldt; K Budde; T Fischer; B Winkelmann; D Schnorr; S A Loening Journal: Urologe A Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 0.639
Authors: Andreas Paul; Jürgen Treckmann; Anja Gallinat; Oliver Witzke; Udo Vester; Christoph E Broelsch Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2007-05-26 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: H Fonouni; A Mehrabi; M Golriz; M Zeier; B P Müller-Stich; P Schemmer; J Werner Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2014-04-28 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: Mark Sawatzky; Abdulmalik Altaf; James Ellsmere; Dennis Klassen; Mark Walsh; Michele Molinari; Björn Nashan; Jaap Bonjer Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2008-09-24 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Anuar Ibrahim Mitre; Francisco T Dénes; William Carlos Nahas; Fabiano A Simões; José Roberto Colombo; Affonso C Piovesan; José L Chambô; Sami Arap; Miguel Srougi Journal: Clinics (Sao Paulo) Date: 2009 Impact factor: 2.365