| Title |
A randomized, prospective study of laparoendoscopic single-site plus one-port versus mini laparoscopic technique for live donor nephrectomy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
World Journal of Urology, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00345-018-2207-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kyu Won Lee, Sae Woong Choi, Yong Hyun Park, Woong Jin Bae, Yong Sun Choi, U-Syn Ha, Sung-Hoo Hong, Ji Youl Lee, Sae Woong Kim, Hyuk Jin Cho |
| Abstract |
To compare the clinical outcomes of laparoendoscopic single-site plus one-port donor nephrectomy (LESSOP-DN) and mini laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (MLDN). A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted from December 2014 to February 2016 in donors scheduled for left donor nephrectomy. Donor and recipient demographics and clinical outcomes including pain scores and questionnaires (BIQ: body image questionnaire, SF-36, patient-reported overall convalescence) were also compared. A total of 121 eligible donors were recruited, of which 99 donors who were scheduled to undergo an operation on their left side were randomized into LESSOP-DN (n = 50) and MLDN (n = 49) groups. There were no significant demographic differences between the two groups. The renal extraction time in the LESS-DN group was shorter than that in the MLDN group (75.89 ± 13.01 vs. 87.31 ± 11.38 min, p < 0.001). Other perioperative parameters and complication rates were comparable between the two groups. The LESSOP-DN group had a smaller incision length than the MLDN group (4.89 ± 0.68 vs. 6.21 ± 1.11 cm, p < 0.001), but cosmetic scores and body image scores were similar in the two groups (p = 0.905, 0.217). Donor quality of life (SF-36) and recovery and satisfaction data were comparable between the two groups. Delayed graft function (DGF) occurred in one recipient undergoing MLDN procedure (2.1%) and progressed to graft failure. There were no differences in cosmetic satisfaction between groups despite the smaller incision size of LESSOP-DN. Safety parameters and subjective measures of postoperative morbidity were similar between the two groups. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 38 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Unknown | 17 | 45% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 32% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 8% |
| Psychology | 3 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 17 | 45% |
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 06 February 2018.
All research outputs
#18,585,544
of 23,020,670 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Urology
#1,737
of 2,117 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#329,168
of 439,370 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Urology
#59
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,020,670 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,117 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 439,370 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.