TY - JOUR
T1 - Determining the superior technique for living-donor nephrectomy: The laparoscopic intraperitoneal versus the retroperitoneoscopic approach
AU - He, Bulang
AU - Bremner, Alex
AU - Han, Y.
AU - Hamdorf, Jeff M.
PY - 2016/4
Y1 - 2016/4
N2 - © Baskent University 2016 Printed in Turkey. All Rights Reserved. Objectives: Laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy is now widely used because of its many beneficial features. Currently, there are 2 major techniques: the laparoscopic intraperitoneal approach and the retroperitoneoscopic approach. There is no evidence to support one particular approach over another. Therefore, in this study, we conducted a systematic literature review with the aim of defining which technique is superior. Materials and Methods: The Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane literature databases were searched for English language articles published between January 1994 and January 2013 using the terms “laparoscopic donor nephrectomy,” “retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy,” and “live donor nephrectomy.” A metaanalysis was undertaken, andI2 statistical analyses were used to describe the percentage of variation across studies due to heterogeneity rather than chance. Results: With the use of our selection criteria, 55 papers on the laparoscopic intraperitoneal approach and 6 papers on the retroperitoneoscopic approach were included in this study. We found significantly lower transfusion rate, fewer patients with delayed graft functions, less vessel injuries, and less conversion to open surgical procedure with the retroperito - neoscopic approach than with the laparoscopic intraperitoneal approach. Conclusions: From this review, a high degree of study heterogeneity was identified, suggesting an urgent need for consistency in reporting laparoscopic livingdonor nephrectomy. Results of the meta-analyses may define a better technique for the future. The retroperitoneoscopic approach may be better than the laparoscopic intraperitoneal approach with fewer complications and fewer patients with delayed graft function. Further study of laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy is recommended to define a standard and thus to minimize the surgical morbidities.
AB - © Baskent University 2016 Printed in Turkey. All Rights Reserved. Objectives: Laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy is now widely used because of its many beneficial features. Currently, there are 2 major techniques: the laparoscopic intraperitoneal approach and the retroperitoneoscopic approach. There is no evidence to support one particular approach over another. Therefore, in this study, we conducted a systematic literature review with the aim of defining which technique is superior. Materials and Methods: The Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane literature databases were searched for English language articles published between January 1994 and January 2013 using the terms “laparoscopic donor nephrectomy,” “retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy,” and “live donor nephrectomy.” A metaanalysis was undertaken, andI2 statistical analyses were used to describe the percentage of variation across studies due to heterogeneity rather than chance. Results: With the use of our selection criteria, 55 papers on the laparoscopic intraperitoneal approach and 6 papers on the retroperitoneoscopic approach were included in this study. We found significantly lower transfusion rate, fewer patients with delayed graft functions, less vessel injuries, and less conversion to open surgical procedure with the retroperito - neoscopic approach than with the laparoscopic intraperitoneal approach. Conclusions: From this review, a high degree of study heterogeneity was identified, suggesting an urgent need for consistency in reporting laparoscopic livingdonor nephrectomy. Results of the meta-analyses may define a better technique for the future. The retroperitoneoscopic approach may be better than the laparoscopic intraperitoneal approach with fewer complications and fewer patients with delayed graft function. Further study of laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy is recommended to define a standard and thus to minimize the surgical morbidities.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/84962646008
U2 - 10.6002/ect.2015.0237
DO - 10.6002/ect.2015.0237
M3 - Review article
SN - 1304-0855
VL - 14
SP - 129
EP - 138
JO - Experimental and Clinical Transplantation
JF - Experimental and Clinical Transplantation
IS - 2
ER -