ArticleCureus2025
Pure Laparoscopic Versus Hand-Assisted Nephrectomy: Comparative Outcomes in Living Kidney Donors.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionKidney transplantation remains the only curative therapy for end-stage renal disease, with living donor nephrectomy playing a vital role in addressing the shortage of deceased donors. This study compares the effectiveness and safety of two minimally invasive surgical techniques for kidney graft procurement: pure laparoscopic nephrectomy and hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective, observational study analyzed 50 living donor nephrectomies performed between 2021 and 2024 at a high-specialty hospital in Mexico. Sociodemographic, clinical, and surgical variables - including surgical time, bleeding, warm ischemia time, complications (Clavien-Dindo classification), and creatinine levels - were evaluated. Statistical analyses were conducted to assess differences between the two techniques.
resultsThe hand-assisted technique was performed in 31 (62%) cases, while the pure laparoscopic approach was used in 19 (38%). The mean surgical time (203.54 ± 62.72 min) and bleeding volume (258.78 ± 536.67 mL) showed no statistically significant differences between the techniques (p > 0.05). Complications occurred in four (8%) patients, with higher-grade complications (3B and 4B) observed exclusively in the pure laparoscopic group. Creatinine levels demonstrated no significant differences between groups at any postoperative interval. DISCUSSION: Both techniques proved to be safe and effective for living donor nephrectomy, with comparable outcomes in surgical parameters and donor renal function. The hand-assisted technique offered advantages in terms of lower bleeding variability, while pure laparoscopic nephrectomy was associated with higher-grade complications in isolated cases.
conclusionsLiving donor nephrectomy is a safe and effective procedure using either technique, emphasizing the importance of institutional expertise and individualized surgical planning. Future research should focus on multicenter studies, donor quality of life, and the integration of advanced technologies such as robotic systems to optimize outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.