BACKGROUND: Advances in minimally invasive surgery for live kidney donors have led to the development of laparoendoscopic single site donor nephrectomy (LESS-DN). At present, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is the technique of choice for donor nephrectomy globally. Compared with open surgical approaches, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is associated with decreased morbidity, faster recovery times and return to normal activity, and shorter hospital stays. LESS-DN differs from standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy; LESS-DN requires a single incision through which the procedure is performed and donor kidney is removed. Previous studies have hypothesised that LESS-DN may provide additional benefits for kidney donors and stimulate increased donor rates. OBJECTIVES: This review looked at the benefits and harms of LESS-DN compared with standard laparoscopic nephrectomy for live kidney donors. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant's Specialised Register to 28 January 2016 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared LESS-DN with laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three authors independently assessed studies for eligibility and conducted risk of bias evaluation. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) or risk difference (RD) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean difference (MD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We included three studies (179 participants) comparing LESS-DN with laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. There were no significant differences between LESS-DN and laparoscopic donor nephrectomy for mean operative time (2 studies, 79 participants: MD 6.36 min, 95% CI -11.85 to 24.57), intra-operative blood loss (2 studies, 79 participants: MD -8.31 mL, 95% CI -23.70 to 7.09), or complication rates (3 studies, 179 participants: RD 0.05, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.14). Pain scores at discharge were significantly less in the LESS-DN group (2 studies, 79 participants: MD -1.19, 95% CI -2.17 to -0.21). For all other outcomes (length of hospital stay; length of time to return to normal activities; blood transfusions; conversion to another form of surgery; warm ischaemia time; total analgesic requirement; graft loss) there were no significant differences observed.Although risk of bias was assessed as low overall, one study was assessed at high risk of attrition bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Given the small number and size of included studies it is uncertain whether LESS-DN is better than laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Well designed and adequately powered RCTs are needed to better define the role of LESS-DN as a minimally invasive option for kidney donor surgery.
BACKGROUND: Advances in minimally invasive surgery for live kidney donors have led to the development of laparoendoscopic single site donor nephrectomy (LESS-DN). At present, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is the technique of choice for donor nephrectomy globally. Compared with open surgical approaches, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is associated with decreased morbidity, faster recovery times and return to normal activity, and shorter hospital stays. LESS-DN differs from standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy; LESS-DN requires a single incision through which the procedure is performed and donor kidney is removed. Previous studies have hypothesised that LESS-DN may provide additional benefits for kidney donors and stimulate increased donor rates. OBJECTIVES: This review looked at the benefits and harms of LESS-DN compared with standard laparoscopic nephrectomy for live kidney donors. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant's Specialised Register to 28 January 2016 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared LESS-DN with laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three authors independently assessed studies for eligibility and conducted risk of bias evaluation. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) or risk difference (RD) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean difference (MD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We included three studies (179 participants) comparing LESS-DN with laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. There were no significant differences between LESS-DN and laparoscopic donor nephrectomy for mean operative time (2 studies, 79 participants: MD 6.36 min, 95% CI -11.85 to 24.57), intra-operative blood loss (2 studies, 79 participants: MD -8.31 mL, 95% CI -23.70 to 7.09), or complication rates (3 studies, 179 participants: RD 0.05, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.14). Pain scores at discharge were significantly less in the LESS-DN group (2 studies, 79 participants: MD -1.19, 95% CI -2.17 to -0.21). For all other outcomes (length of hospital stay; length of time to return to normal activities; blood transfusions; conversion to another form of surgery; warm ischaemia time; total analgesic requirement; graft loss) there were no significant differences observed.Although risk of bias was assessed as low overall, one study was assessed at high risk of attrition bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Given the small number and size of included studies it is uncertain whether LESS-DN is better than laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Well designed and adequately powered RCTs are needed to better define the role of LESS-DN as a minimally invasive option for kidney donor surgery.
Authors: Inderbir S Gill; Arnold P Advincula; Monish Aron; Jeffrey Caddedu; David Canes; Paul G Curcillo; Mihir M Desai; John C Evanko; Tomasso Falcone; Victor Fazio; Matthew Gettman; Andrew A Gumbs; Georges-Pascal Haber; Jihad H Kaouk; Fernando Kim; Stephanie A King; Jeffrey Ponsky; Feza Remzi; Homero Rivas; Alexander Rosemurgy; Sharona Ross; Philip Schauer; Rene Sotelo; Jose Speranza; John Sweeney; Julio Teixeira Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2009-12-09 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Lee Richstone; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Nikhil Waingankar; Joel H Hillelsohn; Sero Andonian; Michael J Schwartz; Louis R Kavoussi Journal: BJU Int Date: 2013-07-04 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Cheguevara Afaneh; Meredith J Aull; Elena Gimenez; Gerald Wang; Marian Charlton; David B Leeser; Sandip Kapur; Joseph J Del Pizzo Journal: Urology Date: 2011-10-11 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Shady A Soliman; Ahmed A Shokeir; Ahmed I Kamal; Ahmed S El-Hefnawy; Ahmed M Harraz; Mohamed M Kamal; Yasser Osman; Bedair Ali El-Dein; Ahmed B Shehab El-Dein; Mohamed A Ghoneim Journal: Arab J Urol Date: 2011-09-09
Authors: Krista L Lentine; Bertram L Kasiske; Andrew S Levey; Patricia L Adams; Josefina Alberú; Mohamed A Bakr; Lorenzo Gallon; Catherine A Garvey; Sandeep Guleria; Philip Kam-Tao Li; Dorry L Segev; Sandra J Taler; Kazunari Tanabe; Linda Wright; Martin G Zeier; Michael Cheung; Amit X Garg Journal: Transplantation Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Moira H D Bruintjes; Andries E Braat; Albert Dahan; Gert-Jan Scheffer; Luuk B Hilbrands; Frank C H d'Ancona; Rogier A R T Donders; Cornelis J H M van Laarhoven; Michiel C Warlé Journal: Trials Date: 2017-03-04 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Mireia Musquera; Carlos Ignacio Calvo; José Vetorazzo; Tarek Ajami; María José Ribal; Lluis Peri; Antonio Alcaraz Journal: Cent European J Urol Date: 2021-01-15
Authors: Emmanuel O Adewuyi; Divya Mehta; Yadav Sapkota; Asa Auta; Kosuke Yoshihara; Mette Nyegaard; Lyn R Griffiths; Grant W Montgomery; Daniel I Chasman; Dale R Nyholt Journal: Hum Genet Date: 2020-09-21 Impact factor: 5.881