Scholarlink

Background <p>Laparoendoscopic single-site donor nephrectomy (LESS-DN) has been proposed as a minimally invasive alternative to conventional laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (CLDN), but its perioperative advantages remain controversial. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the outcomes of LESS-DN and CLDN based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs).</p> Methods <p>PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched up to August 20, 2025, for English-language RCTs comparing LESS-DN and CLDN. The risk of bias was assessed using the original Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB 1.0), and pooled analyses were performed using Review Manager 5.4.1 software.</p> Results <p>Four randomized controlled trials involving 274 donors (LESS-DN, <i>n</i> = 136; CLDN, <i>n</i> = 138) were included. There were no significant differences between groups in operative time, warm ischemia time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, time to extraction, or overall complication rates.</p> Conclusions <p>Based on the currently available randomized evidence, no statistically significant differences were detected between LESS-DN and CLDN in the perioperative outcomes analyzed in living kidney donors. Further adequately powered, multicenter randomized trials—particularly evaluating postoperative pain, patient-reported recovery, and cosmetic satisfaction—are warranted.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Laparoendoscopic single-site versus conventional laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月6日

查看全文
  • Hanlin Liu,
  • Li Wang,
  • Jianwei Yang,
  • Siyu Chen,
  • Wei Shi,
  • Xiaoran Li

摘要

Background

Laparoendoscopic single-site donor nephrectomy (LESS-DN) has been proposed as a minimally invasive alternative to conventional laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (CLDN), but its perioperative advantages remain controversial. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the outcomes of LESS-DN and CLDN based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Methods

PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched up to August 20, 2025, for English-language RCTs comparing LESS-DN and CLDN. The risk of bias was assessed using the original Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB 1.0), and pooled analyses were performed using Review Manager 5.4.1 software.

Results

Four randomized controlled trials involving 274 donors (LESS-DN, n = 136; CLDN, n = 138) were included. There were no significant differences between groups in operative time, warm ischemia time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, time to extraction, or overall complication rates.

Conclusions

Based on the currently available randomized evidence, no statistically significant differences were detected between LESS-DN and CLDN in the perioperative outcomes analyzed in living kidney donors. Further adequately powered, multicenter randomized trials—particularly evaluating postoperative pain, patient-reported recovery, and cosmetic satisfaction—are warranted.