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

IF 1.9 4区医学 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY

International Urology and Nephrology Pub Date : 2026-05-06 DOI:10.1007/s11255-026-05183-4

Hanlin Liu, Li Wang, Jianwei Yang, Siyu Chen, Wei Shi, Xiaoran Li

{"title":"Laparoendoscopic single-site versus conventional laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.","authors":"Hanlin Liu, Li Wang, Jianwei Yang, Siyu Chen, Wei Shi, Xiaoran Li","doi":"10.1007/s11255-026-05183-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":14454,"journal":{"name":"International Urology and Nephrology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Urology and Nephrology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-026-05183-4","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

查看原文本刊更多论文

腹腔镜单部位活体肾切除术与传统腹腔镜活体肾切除术：随机对照试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析。

背景：腹腔镜单部位供肾切除术（LESS-DN）已被提出作为传统腹腔镜供肾切除术（CLDN）的一种微创替代方案，但其围手术期优势仍存在争议。本荟萃分析旨在比较基于随机对照试验（rct）的LESS-DN和CLDN的结果。方法：检索截至2025年8月20日的PubMed、Embase和Cochrane Library，检索比较LESS-DN和CLDN的英文随机对照试验。使用原始Cochrane风险偏倚工具（RoB 1.0）评估偏倚风险，并使用Review Manager 5.4.1软件进行汇总分析。结果：纳入4项随机对照试验，涉及274名供者（LESS-DN, n = 136； CLDN, n = 138）。两组在手术时间、热缺血时间、估计失血量、住院时间、拔牙时间或总并发症发生率方面无显著差异。结论：根据目前可获得的随机证据，在活体肾供者的围手术期结局分析中，LESS-DN与CLDN之间没有统计学差异。进一步进行充分有力的多中心随机试验——特别是评估术后疼痛、患者报告的恢复情况和美容满意度——是必要的。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

International Urology and Nephrology 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学

CiteScore

3.40

自引率

5.00%

发文量

329

审稿时长

1.7 months

期刊介绍： International Urology and Nephrology publishes original papers on a broad range of topics in urology, nephrology and andrology. The journal integrates papers originating from clinical practice.