+ Site Statistics
References:
54,258,434
Abstracts:
29,560,870
PMIDs:
28,072,757
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Should hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic nephrectomy replace the standard laparoscopic technique for living donor nephrectomy? A meta-analysis



Should hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic nephrectomy replace the standard laparoscopic technique for living donor nephrectomy? A meta-analysis



International Journal of Surgery 40: 83-90



We performed this meta-analysis to compare hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic (HARP) and traditional laparoscopic (TLS) techniques for living donor nephrectomy. We searched PubMed, Cochrane Central, EMBASE, and Web of science for prospective studies, comparing HARP and TLS techniques. Data were extracted from eligible studies and pooled as risk ratios (RR) or standardized mean difference (SMD), using RevMan software (version 5.3 for windows). We performed a sensitivity analysis to test the robustness of our evidence and a subgroup analysis to stratify intraoperative complications on Clavien-Dindo score. Seven studies (498 patients) were included in the final analysis. HARP was superior to TLS in terms of shortening the operative duration (SMD = -0.84, 95% CI [-1.18 to -0.50]) and warm ischemia time (SMD = -0.93, 95% CI [-1.13 to -0.72]). There was no significant difference between HARP and TLS in terms of blood loss (SMD = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.50 to 0.76]), hospital stay (SMD = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.70 to 0.15]) or graft survival (RR = 0.97, 95% CI [0.92 to 1.02]). The overall risk ratio of intraoperative complications did not differ significantly between the two groups (RR = 0.62, 95% CI [0.31 to 1.21]). Our meta-analysis shows that HARP was associated with a shorter surgery duration and less warm ischemia time than TLS. However, no significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of graft survival or intraoperative complication rates. We recommend HARP over TLS for living donor nephrectomy; however, future studies with larger sample sizes are recommended to compare both techniques in terms of operative safety and quality of life outcomes.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 060247364

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 28216391

DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.02.018


Related references

Safety and Efficacy of Retroperitoneoscopic Living Donor Nephrectomy: Comparison of Early Complication, Donor and Recipient Outcome with Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Living Donor Nephrectomy. Journal of Endourology 2018, 2018

Can right-sided hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy be advocated above standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a randomized pilot study. Transplant International 27(2): 162-169, 2014

Hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic living donor nephrectomy superior to laparoscopic nephrectomy. Transplantation Proceedings 35(2): 782-783, 2003

Hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic versus standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: HARP-trial. Bmc Surgery 10: 11, 2010

Randomized controlled trial comparing hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic versus standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Transplantation 97(2): 161-167, 2014

Cost-effectiveness of hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic versus standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a randomized study. Transplantation 96(2): 170-175, 2013

Laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy: a single-center sequential experience comparing hand-assisted versus standard technique. Urology 70(6): 1060-1063, 2007

Hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy versus standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a comparison study in the canine model. Techniques in Urology 5(3): 174-178, 1999

Optimizing left-sided live kidney donation: hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic as alternative to standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Transplant International 23(4): 358-363, 2010

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) for live donor nephrectomy is more time- and cost-effective than standard laparoscopic nephrectomy. Surgical Endoscopy 16(3): 422-425, 2002

Minimal incision living donor nephrectomy compared to the hand-assisted laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy. World Journal of Urology 20(6): 356-359, 2003

Early and late graft function after laparoscopic hand-assisted donor nephrectomy for living kidney transplantation: comparison with open donor nephrectomy. Urologia Internationalis 84(1): 61-66, 2010

Results and surgical complications of living donor nephrectomy: open vs hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy. Progres en Urologie 19(6): 389-394, 2009

A randomized clinical trial of living donor nephrectomy: a plea for a differentiated appraisal of mini-open muscle splitting incision and hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Transplant International 25(9): 976-986, 2013

Hand-assisted laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy as an alternative to traditional laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy. American Journal of Transplantation 2(10): 983-988, 2002