4.5 Article

A meta-analysis of mini-open versus standard open and laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy

Journal

TRANSPLANT INTERNATIONAL
Volume 22, Issue 4, Pages 463-474

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1432-2277.2008.00828.x

Keywords

laparoscopy; meta-analysis; minimal incision; nephrectomy; open; renal transplantation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Mini-open donor nephrectomy (MODN) potentially combines advantages of standard open (SODN) and laparoscopic techniques (LDN). This article is a comparison of these techniques. A literature search was performed for studies comparing MODN with SODN or LDN. Nine studies met our selection criteria. Of the 1038 patients, 433 (42%) underwent MODN, 389 (37%) SODN and 216 (21%) LDN. MODN versus SODN: Operative time (P = 0.17), warm ischemia time (P = 0.20) and blood loss (P = 0.30) were not significantly different. Hospital stay and time to return to work were shorter for MODN by 1.67 days (P < 0.001) and 5 weeks (P = 0.03). Analgesia requirement and overall complications were less in the MODN group (P < 0.001) and (P = 0.03). Ureteric complications (P = 0.21) and 1-year graft survival (P = 0.28) were not significantly different. MODN versus LDN: Operative and warm ischemia times were significantly shorter for the MODN by 55 min (P = 0.005) and 147 s (P < 0.001). Analgesia requirement was greater for the MODN group by 9.62 mEq morphine (P = 0.04). No significant differences were found for blood loss (P = 0.8), hospital stay (P = 0.35), donor complications (P = 0.40) or ureteric complications (P = 0.83). MODN appears to provide advantages for the donor in comparison to SODN and also has a shorter operative time when compared with the LDN.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available