Journal of Clinical Medicine Research, ISSN 1918-3003 print, 1918-3011 online, Open Access
Article copyright, the authors; Journal compilation copyright, J Clin Med Res and Elmer Press Inc
Journal website https://www.jocmr.org

Original Article

Volume 12, Number 11, November 2020, pages 740-746


Retroperitoneoscopic Standard or Hand-Assisted Versus Laparoscopic Standard or Hand-Assisted Donor Nephrectomy: A Systematic Review and the First Network Meta-Analysis

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1. Diagram of the search strategy.
Figure 2.
Figure 2. Forest plots of NMA depicting operative time and right kidney retrieval. (a) Operative time. (b) Right kidney retrieval.

Tables

Table 1. Study Characteristics
 
Author, year, countryStudyNumber of patients, RPDN/LDNAge, RPDN/LDNBMI, RPDN/LDNNOS (max = 9)
RPDN: retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy; LDN: laparoscopic donor nephrectomy; BMI: body mass index; HALDN: hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy; HARDN: hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy; MD: mean difference; HQ: high quality; NOS: Newcastle-Ottawa scale.
Buell et al, 2004 [14], USARPDN-HALDN28/3144.5 ± 8.5/41.1 ± 11.526 ± 3.8/26.8 ± 4.47
Sundqvist et al, 2004 [13], SwedenHARDN-LDN11/1448 ± 6.75/53.5 ± 7.2526 ± 2.5/25.7 ± 1.757
Bachmann et al, 2006 [15], SwitzerlandRDN-HALDN77/4754 ± 13/48 ± 526/247
Ruszat et al, 2006 [16], SwitzerlandRDN-LDN65/1453 ± 10/46 ± 1026 ± 4/24 ± 37
Ruszat et al, 2006 [16], SwitzerlandRDN-HALDN65/3453 ± 10/50 ± 1326 ± 4/24 ± 37
Troppmann et al, 2009 [17], USAHARDN-HALDN45/4547 ± 10.75/45 ± 1126.3 ± 3.78/26.6 ± 3.458
Dols et al, 2013 [18], the NetherlandsHARDN-LDN95/9552.8 ± 11.8/52.4 ± 11.726 ± 3.5/26.2 ± 3.59
Klop et al, 2013, [19], the NetherlandsHARDN-LDN82/8654 ± 11/52 ± 11.5NR8
Pooled estimates (total 769)403 (53%)/366 (47%)MD = 2.27 (-0.10, 4.65)MD = 0.81 (-0.26, 1.87)HQ = 8

 

Table 2. Outcome of Interests of Standard and Hand-Assisted RDN vs. Standard and Hand-Assisted LDV of Pairwise Meta-Analysis
 
Outcome of interestsNumber of studies, and patients (%; events/total)Statistical method, estimated effect, 95% CIsP valueI2 (%)
MD: mean difference; OR: odds ratio; RE: random-effects; FE: fixed-effects; CIs: confidence intervals; WIT: warm ischemic time; EBL: estimated blood loss; HLOS: hospital length of stay; BMI: body mass index.
Age [13-19]8, 834MD = 2.27 (-0.10 to 4.65)0.0659
Gender (male) [13-19]8, 834 (40; 187/468) (51; 186/366)OR = 0.77 (0.44 to 1.34)0.3565
BMI [13-18]7, 666MD = 0.81 (-0.26 to 1.87)0.1482
Right kidney retrieval [15-17]4, 392 (25; 62/252) (4; 6/140)OR = 5.43 (1.10 to 26.76)0.0460
Renal arteries > 1 [14, 17-19]4, 507 (24; 59/250) (22; 56/257)OR = 1.10 (0.73 to 1.68)0.650
Conversion to open [14, 16, 17]4, 427 (2.4; 6/253) (3.4; 6/174)OR = 0.54 (0.17 to 1.73)0.300
Operative time (min) [13-17]8, 834MD = -36.96 (-54.68 to -19.25)0.00192
EBL (mL) [13, 14, 16-18]6, 542MD = -39.60 (-84.08 to 4.88)0.0877
WIT (s) [13-18]7, 666MD = -47.88 (-97.74 to 1.99)0.0695
Intraoperative complications [14, 16-18]5, 517 (7; 20/298) (10; 21/219)Peto OR = 0.66 (0.34. 1.29)0.2943
Postoperative graft complications [14, 16-18]5, 626 (13; 44/352) (9; 25/274)OR = 1.05 (0.61, 1.30)0.8525
HLOS [13-19]7, 710MD = 0.09 (-0.07 to 0.24)0.2824
Day 1 postoperative pain [15, 18]2, 314MD = -0.57 ((-1.75 to 0.60)0.3491
Day 2 postoperative pain [15, 18]2, 314MD = 0.09 (-0.27 to 0.46)0.6212
Day 3 postoperative pain [15, 18]2, 314MD = -0.23 (-0.53 to 0.06)0.120