Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 7, 2026
Single Port Donor Nephrectomy
Published on: March 12, 2011
Laparoendoscopic single-site versus conventional laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy: a systematic review and
Hanlin Liu1,2, Li Wang1,2, Jianwei Yang1,2
1Department of Urology, The Second Hospital & Clinical Medical School, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730030, China.
Background:
Laparoendoscopic single-site donor nephrectomy (LESS-DN) has been proposed as a minimally invasive alternative to conventional laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (CLDN), but its perioperative advantages remain controversial. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the outcomes of LESS-DN and CLDN based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
Methods:
PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched up to August 20, 2025, for English-language RCTs comparing LESS-DN and CLDN. The risk of bias was assessed using the original Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB 1.0), and pooled analyses were performed using Review Manager 5.4.1 software.
Results:
Four randomized controlled trials involving 274 donors (LESS-DN, n = 136; CLDN, n = 138) were included. There were no significant differences between groups in operative time, warm ischemia time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, time to extraction, or overall complication rates.
Conclusions:
Based on the currently available randomized evidence, no statistically significant differences were detected between LESS-DN and CLDN in the perioperative outcomes analyzed in living kidney donors. Further adequately powered, multicenter randomized trials-particularly evaluating postoperative pain, patient-reported recovery, and cosmetic satisfaction-are warranted.
Related Concept Videos
01:26Kidney Transplant II: Surgical Procedure
01:28Kidney Transplant I: Introduction