Robot‐assisted laparoscopic vs laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in renal transplantation: A meta‐analysis

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Currently, the robot-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (RDN) technique is used for live donor nephrectomy. Does it provide sufficient safety and benefits for living donors? We conducted a meta-analysis to assess the safety and efficacy of RDN compared with the laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eligible studies were retrieved and screened from electronic databases from 1999 onward: PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Relevant parameters were explored using Review Manager V5.3 and included operative time, warm ischemia time, estimated blood loss, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: Compared with RDN, LDN had shorter operative time (min; weighted mean difference (WMD): -0.53; 95% CI: [-0.85, 0.20]; P = 0.001) and warm ischemia time (second; WMD: -55.01; 95% CI: [-71.56, 38.45]; P < 0.00001) and less estimated blood loss (mL; WMD: -28.30, 95% CI: [-46.37, 10.24], P = 0.002). The pooled analysis of postoperative pain showed lower visual analog scale (VAS) scores for RDN compared with LDN (WMD:1.28, P < 0.00001). We also observed that length of hospital stay, postoperative serum creatinine (SCr) in donors, postoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of recipients and postoperative complications for donors were not significantly different between groups. CONCLUSION: As long as RDN is practiced proficiently, it is believed that RDN is a feasible alternative to LDN.