↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Laparoendoscopic single-site donor nephrectomy (LESS-DN) versus standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
93 Mendeley
Title
Laparoendoscopic single-site donor nephrectomy (LESS-DN) versus standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010850.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ameet Gupta, Kamran Ahmed, Howard G Kynaston, Prokar Dasgupta, Piotr L Chlosta, Omar M Aboumarzouk

Abstract

Advances in minimally invasive surgery for live kidney donors have led to the development of laparoendoscopic single site donor nephrectomy (LESS-DN). At present, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is the technique of choice for donor nephrectomy globally. Compared with open surgical approaches, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is associated with decreased morbidity, faster recovery times and return to normal activity, and shorter hospital stays. LESS-DN differs from standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy; LESS-DN requires a single incision through which the procedure is performed and donor kidney is removed. Previous studies have hypothesised that LESS-DN may provide additional benefits for kidney donors and stimulate increased donor rates. This review looked at the benefits and harms of LESS-DN compared with standard laparoscopic nephrectomy for live kidney donors. We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant's Specialised Register to 28 January 2016 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared LESS-DN with laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in adults. Three authors independently assessed studies for eligibility and conducted risk of bias evaluation. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) or risk difference (RD) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean difference (MD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes. We included three studies (179 participants) comparing LESS-DN with laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. There were no significant differences between LESS-DN and laparoscopic donor nephrectomy for mean operative time (2 studies, 79 participants: MD 6.36 min, 95% CI -11.85 to 24.57), intra-operative blood loss (2 studies, 79 participants: MD -8.31 mL, 95% CI -23.70 to 7.09), or complication rates (3 studies, 179 participants: RD 0.05, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.14). Pain scores at discharge were significantly less in the LESS-DN group (2 studies, 79 participants: MD -1.19, 95% CI -2.17 to -0.21). For all other outcomes (length of hospital stay; length of time to return to normal activities; blood transfusions; conversion to another form of surgery; warm ischaemia time; total analgesic requirement; graft loss) there were no significant differences observed.Although risk of bias was assessed as low overall, one study was assessed at high risk of attrition bias. Given the small number and size of included studies it is uncertain whether LESS-DN is better than laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Well designed and adequately powered RCTs are needed to better define the role of LESS-DN as a minimally invasive option for kidney donor surgery.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 93 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 14 15%
Student > Master 13 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 14%
Researcher 12 13%
Other 8 9%
Other 14 15%
Unknown 19 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 13%
Unspecified 8 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 25 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 June 2016.
All research outputs
#17,806,995
of 22,875,477 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#11,292
of 12,329 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#239,473
of 338,302 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#243
of 281 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,875,477 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,329 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.5. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 338,302 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 281 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.