Laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) vs laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The aim of this study was to provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of reports comparing laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) living-donor nephrectomy (LDN) vs standard laparoscopic LDN (LLDN). A systematic review of the literature was performed in September 2013 using PubMed, Scopus, Ovid and The Cochrane library databases. Article selection proceeded according to the search strategy based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses criteria. Weighted mean differences (WMDs) were used to measure continuous variables and odds ratios (ORs) to measure categorical ones. Nine publications meeting eligibility criteria were identified, including 461 LESS LDN and 1006 LLDN cases. There were more left-side cases in the LESS LDN group (96.5% vs 88.6%, P < 0.001). Meta-analysis of extractable data showed that LLDN had a shorter operative time (WMD 15.06 min, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.9-25.1; P = 0.003), without a significant difference in warm ischaemia time (WMD 0.41 min, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.84; P = 0.06). Estimated blood loss was lower for LESS LDN (WMD -22.09 mL, 95% CI -29.5 to -14.6; P < 0.001); however, this difference was not clinically significant. There was a greater likelihood of conversion for LESS LDN (OR 13.21, 95% CI 4.65-37.53; P < 0.001). Hospital stay was similar (WMD -0.11 days, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.12; P = 0.35), as well as the visual analogue pain score at discharge (WMD -0.31, 95% CI -0.96 to 0.35; P = 0.36), but the analgesic requirement was lower for LESS LDN (WMD -2.58 mg, 95% CI -5.01 to -0.15; P = 0.04). Moreover, there was no difference in the postoperative complication rate (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.65-1.54; P = 0.99). Renal function of the recipient, as based on creatinine levels at 1 month, showed similar outcomes between groups (WMD 0.10 mg/dL, -0.09 to 0.29; P = 0.29). In conclusion, LESS LDN represents an emerging option for living kidney donation. This procedure offers comparable surgical and early functional outcomes to the conventional LLDN, with a lower analgesic requirement. However, it is more technically challenging than LLDN, as shown by a greater likelihood of conversion. The role of LESS LDN remains to be defined.

Autorino R ，Brandao LF ，Sankari B ，Zargar H ，Laydner H ，Akça O ，De Sio M ，Mirone V ，Chueh SC ，Kaouk JH ... -  《-》

Robotic versus laparoscopic versus open nephrectomy for live kidney donors.

Waiting lists for kidney transplantation continue to grow. Live kidney donation significantly reduces waiting times and improves long-term outcomes for recipients. Major disincentives to potential kidney donors are the pain and morbidity associated with surgery. This is an update of a review published in 2011. To assess the benefits and harms of open donor nephrectomy (ODN), laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN), hand-assisted LDN (HALDN) and robotic donor nephrectomy (RDN) as appropriate surgical techniques for live kidney donors. We contacted the Information Specialist and searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 31 March 2024 using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LDN with ODN, HALDN, or RDN were included. Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts for eligibility, assessed study quality, and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information where necessary. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Thirteen studies randomising 1280 live kidney donors to ODN, LDN, HALDN, or RDN were included. All studies were assessed as having a low or unclear risk of bias for selection bias. Five studies had a high risk of bias for blinding. Seven studies randomised 815 live kidney donors to LDN or ODN. LDN was associated with reduced analgesia use (high certainty evidence) and shorter hospital stay, a longer procedure and longer warm ischaemia time (moderate certainty evidence). There were no overall differences in blood loss, perioperative complications, or need for operations (low or very low certainty evidence). Three studies randomised 270 live kidney donors to LDN or HALDN. There were no differences between HALDN and LDN for analgesia requirement, hospital stay (high certainty evidence), duration of procedure (moderate certainty evidence), blood loss, perioperative complications, or reoperations (low certainty evidence). The evidence for warm ischaemia time was very uncertain due to high heterogeneity. One study randomised 50 live kidney donors to retroperitoneal ODN or HALDN and reported less pain and analgesia requirements with ODN. It found decreased blood loss and duration of the procedure with HALDN. No differences were found in perioperative complications, reoperations, hospital stay, or primary warm ischaemia time. One study randomised 45 live kidney donors to LDN or RDN and reported a longer warm ischaemia time with RDN but no differences in analgesia requirement, duration of procedure, blood loss, perioperative complications, reoperations, or hospital stay. One study randomised 100 live kidney donors to two variations of LDN and reported no differences in hospital stay, duration of procedure, conversion rates, primary warm ischaemia times, or complications (not meta-analysed). The conversion rates to ODN were 6/587 (1.02%) in LDN, 1/160 (0.63%) in HALDN, and 0/15 in RDN. Graft outcomes were rarely or selectively reported across the studies. There were no differences between LDN and ODN for early graft loss, delayed graft function, acute rejection, ureteric complications, kidney function or one-year graft loss. In a meta-regression analysis between LDN and ODN, moderate certainty evidence on procedure duration changed significantly in favour of LDN over time (yearly reduction = 7.12 min, 95% CI 2.56 to 11.67; P = 0.0022). Differences in very low certainty evidence on perioperative complications also changed significantly in favour of LDN over time (yearly change in LnRR = 0.107, 95% CI 0.022 to 0.192; P = 0.014). Various different combinations of techniques were used in each study, resulting in heterogeneity among the results. LDN is associated with less pain compared to ODN and has comparable pain to HALDN and RDN. HALDN is comparable to LDN in all outcomes except warm ischaemia time, which may be associated with a reduction. One study reported kidneys obtained during RDN had greater warm ischaemia times. Complications and occurrences of perioperative events needing further intervention were equivalent between all methods.

Kourounis G ，Tingle SJ ，Hoather TJ ，Thompson ER ，Rogers A ，Page T ，Sanni A ，Rix DA ，Soomro NA ，Wilson C ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Laparoendoscopic single-site nephrectomy compared with conventional laparoscopic nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies.

Laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) surgery has increasingly been used to perform radical, partial, simple, or donor nephrectomy to reduce the morbidity and scarring associated with surgical intervention. Studies comparing LESS nephrectomy (LESS-N) and conventional laparoscopic nephrectomy (CL-N) have reported conflicting results. To assess the current evidence regarding the efficiency, safety, and potential advantages of LESS-N compared with CL-N. We comprehensively searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library and performed a systematic review and cumulative meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective comparative studies assessing the two techniques. Two RCTs and 25 retrospective studies including a total of 1094 cases were identified. Although LESS-N was associated with a longer operative time (weighted mean difference [WMD]: 9.87 min; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.37-16.38; p=0.003) and a higher conversion rate (6% compared with 0.3%; odds ratio: 4.83; 95% CI, 1.87-12.45; p=0.001), patients in this group might benefit from less postoperative pain (WMD: -0.48; 95% CI, -0.95 to -0.02; p=0.04), lower analgesic requirement (WMD: -4.78 mg; 95% CI, -8.59 to -0.97; p=0.01), shorter hospital stay (WMD: -0.32 d; 95% CI, -0.55 to -0.09; p=0.007), shorter recovery time (WMD: -5.08 d; 95% CI, -8.49 to -1.68; p=0.003), and better cosmetic outcome (WMD: 1.07; 95% CI, 0.67-1.48; p<0.00001). Perioperative complications, estimated blood loss, warm ischemia time, and postoperative serum creatinine levels of graft recipients did not differ significantly between techniques. LESS-N offers a safe and efficient alternative to CL-N with less pain, shorter recovery time, and better cosmetic outcome. Given the inherent limitations of the included studies, future well-designed RCTs are awaited to confirm and update the findings of this analysis.

Fan X ，Lin T ，Xu K ，Yin Z ，Huang H ，Dong W ，Huang J ... -  《-》

Comparison of laparoendoscopic single-site donor nephrectomy and conventional laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: donor and recipient outcomes.

To present a comparison of perioperative donor outcomes and recipient graft function in a series of patients undergoing laparoendoscopic single-site donor nephrectomy (LESS-DN) versus conventional laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN). Data were collected for 50 consecutive LESS-DN patients and a matched cohort of 50 LDN patients. The donor outcomes analyzed included operative time, estimated blood loss, complications, visual analog pain scores, and recovery time. The recipient outcomes analyzed included serum creatinine at discharge and follow-up and the incidence of delayed graft function. The mean total operative time was shorter in the LDN group than in the LESS-DN group (P < .0001). Linear regression analysis of the LESS-DN operative times relative to case number showed a significant decrease in the operative time with increasing case number (r(2) = 0.19, P = .002). No statistically significant differences were found in estimated blood loss, warm ischemia time, length of stay, or visual analog pain scores between the 2 groups. However, the surgical incision was significantly smaller in the LESS-DN group (P < .0001). After discharge, the patient-reported time to complete recovery was faster in the LESS-DN group (P = .01). The incidence of complications was similar in both groups; however, major complications only occurred in the LDN group. No differences were found in the recipient serum creatinine values or the incidence of delayed graft function. Our initial experience with LESS-DN is encouraging. This retrospective matched-pair comparison between LESS-DN and LDN suggests that the single-port approach might be associated with quicker convalescence. Longer operative times in the LESS-DN group could simply represent the learning curve of a novel procedure.

Afaneh C ，Aull MJ ，Gimenez E ，Wang G ，Charlton M ，Leeser DB ，Kapur S ，Del Pizzo JJ ... -  《-》

Pfannenstiel laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) vs conventional multiport laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: a prospective randomized controlled trial.

To present outcomes of a randomized, patient-blinded controlled trial on Pfannenstiel laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) vs conventional multiport laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. Patients presenting as left kidney donors between January 2009 and November 2011 were randomized to LESS donor nephrectomy (LESS-DN: n = 15) or conventional laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN: n = 14). Patients were blinded to the surgical approach preoperatively and attempts to continue patient blinding postoperatively were made by applying dressings consistent with multiple conventional laparoscopic incisions for all patients. De-identified data related to the operation, peri-operative course and postoperative follow-up were prospectively collected and compared between the two groups with an intention-to-treat analysis. There were no significant differences between the groups when comparing operating time, estimated blood loss (EBL), i.v. fluid administration, renal allograft warm ischaemia time (WIT), length of hospital stay (LOS) and total inpatient analgesic requirements. Quantitative pain assessment was not significantly different on postoperative day (POD) #0, however, it was significantly lower in the LESS-DN group, beginning on POD #1 (P < 0.05). The changes in haematocrit and serum creatinine in the two groups were not significantly different, and there were no blood transfusions in either group, nor was there a decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate to <60 mL/min per 1.73 m² of body surface area in any patients. Two patients in the LESS-DN group were converted to conventional LDN, both because of failure to progress effectively. All allografts were functional at the time of transplantation and revascularization, with no cases of hyperacute rejection. Peri-operative variables including EBL, WIT and LOS were equivalent when comparing Pfannenstiel LESS-DN with conventional LDN. Patient-reported visual analogue pain scale scores were significantly lower in the LESS-DN group beginning on the first postoperative day.

Richstone L ，Rais-Bahrami S ，Waingankar N ，Hillelsohn JH ，Andonian S ，Schwartz MJ ，Kavoussi LR ... -  《-》