Right and left living donor nephrectomy and operative approach: A systematic review and meta-analysis of donor and recipient outcomes.

Gavin G Calpin, Cian Hehir, Matthew G Davey, Benjamin M MacCurtain, Dilly Little, Niall F Davis
{"title":"Right and left living donor nephrectomy and operative approach: A systematic review and meta-analysis of donor and recipient outcomes.","authors":"Gavin G Calpin, Cian Hehir, Matthew G Davey, Benjamin M MacCurtain, Dilly Little, Niall F Davis","doi":"10.1016/j.trre.2024.100880","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The left kidney is preferable in living donor nephrectomy (LDN). We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of right versus left LDN in both donor and recipients. A subgroup analysis of outcomes based on operative approach was also performed.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed as per PRISMA guidelines. Outcomes of interest were extracted from included studies and analysed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 31 studies included with 79,912 transplants. Left LDN was performed in 84.1 % of cases and right LDN in 15.9 %. Right LDN was associated with reduced EBL (P = 0.010), intra-operative complications (P = 0.030) and operative time (P = 0.006), but higher rates of conversion to open surgery (1.4 % vs 0.9 %). However, right living donor renal transplantation (LDRT) had higher rates of delayed graft function (5.4 % vs 4.2 %, P < 0.0001) and graft loss (2.6 % vs 1.1 %, P < 0.0001). Graft survival was reduced in right LDRT at 3 years (92.0 % vs 94.2 %, P = 0.001) but comparable to left LDRT at 1- and 5-years. Otherwise, donor and recipient peri-operative outcomes and serum creatinine levels were comparable in both groups. Hand-assisted LDN was associated with shorter warm ischaemia time (P < 0.0001) but longer length of stay (LOS) than laparoscopic LDN and robotic-assisted LDN (P < 0.0001). RA-LDN was associated with less EBL and shorter LOS (both P < 0.0001) while patients who underwent L-LDN had a lower mean serum creatinine (SCr) level on discharge (P < 0.0001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Right LDRT has higher rates of delayed graft function and graft loss compared to left LDRT. Minimally-invasive surgical approaches potentially offer improved outcomes but further large-scale randomised controlled trials studies are required to confirm this finding.</p>","PeriodicalId":94259,"journal":{"name":"Transplantation reviews (Orlando, Fla.)","volume":" ","pages":"100880"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transplantation reviews (Orlando, Fla.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trre.2024.100880","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The left kidney is preferable in living donor nephrectomy (LDN). We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of right versus left LDN in both donor and recipients. A subgroup analysis of outcomes based on operative approach was also performed.

Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed as per PRISMA guidelines. Outcomes of interest were extracted from included studies and analysed.

Results: There were 31 studies included with 79,912 transplants. Left LDN was performed in 84.1 % of cases and right LDN in 15.9 %. Right LDN was associated with reduced EBL (P = 0.010), intra-operative complications (P = 0.030) and operative time (P = 0.006), but higher rates of conversion to open surgery (1.4 % vs 0.9 %). However, right living donor renal transplantation (LDRT) had higher rates of delayed graft function (5.4 % vs 4.2 %, P < 0.0001) and graft loss (2.6 % vs 1.1 %, P < 0.0001). Graft survival was reduced in right LDRT at 3 years (92.0 % vs 94.2 %, P = 0.001) but comparable to left LDRT at 1- and 5-years. Otherwise, donor and recipient peri-operative outcomes and serum creatinine levels were comparable in both groups. Hand-assisted LDN was associated with shorter warm ischaemia time (P < 0.0001) but longer length of stay (LOS) than laparoscopic LDN and robotic-assisted LDN (P < 0.0001). RA-LDN was associated with less EBL and shorter LOS (both P < 0.0001) while patients who underwent L-LDN had a lower mean serum creatinine (SCr) level on discharge (P < 0.0001).

Conclusion: Right LDRT has higher rates of delayed graft function and graft loss compared to left LDRT. Minimally-invasive surgical approaches potentially offer improved outcomes but further large-scale randomised controlled trials studies are required to confirm this finding.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
右侧和左侧活体肾切除术及手术方法:供体和受体结果的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
简介活体肾脏切除术(LDN)以左肾为佳。我们旨在研究右侧与左侧 LDN 对供体和受体的安全性和有效性。我们还根据手术方法对结果进行了分组分析:按照 PRISMA 指南进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析。从纳入的研究中提取相关结果并进行分析:结果:共纳入 31 项研究,79912 例移植。84.1%的病例进行了左侧LDN,15.9%的病例进行了右侧LDN。右侧 LDN 与减少 EBL(P = 0.010)、术中并发症(P = 0.030)和手术时间(P = 0.006)有关,但转为开放手术的比例较高(1.4% 对 0.9%)。然而,右侧活体肾移植(LDRT)的移植物功能延迟率更高(5.4% vs 4.2%,P 结论:右侧活体肾移植的移植物功能延迟率更高,但手术时间更短(P = 0.030),并发症更少(P = 0.006):与左侧活体肾移植相比,右侧活体肾移植的移植物功能延迟率和移植物丢失率更高。微创手术方法可能会改善治疗效果,但需要进一步的大规模随机对照试验研究来证实这一结论。
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 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Corrigendum to "Factors and interventions affecting tacrolimus intrapatient variability: A systematic review and meta-analysis" [Transplantation Reviews 38 (2024) 100878]. Right and left living donor nephrectomy and operative approach: A systematic review and meta-analysis of donor and recipient outcomes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1