Background: The aim of this systematic review was to compare the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy with the "gold" standard of open live donor nephrectomy.
Search strategy: Three search strategies were devised to enable literature retrieval from the Medline, Current Contents, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases up until, and including, February 2000.
Study selection: Inclusion of a report was determined on the basis of a predetermined protocol, independent assessment by two reviewers, and a final consensus decision. English language reports were selected and acceptable study designs included randomized-controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, case series, or case reports. Each report was required to provide information on at least one of several safety and efficacy outcomes as detailed in the protocol.
Data collection and analysis: Twenty-five reports met the inclusion criteria. They were tabulated and critically appraised in terms of the methodology and design, sample size, outcomes, and the possible influence of bias, confounding, and chance.
Results: High level evidence comparing the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy with open donor nephrectomy was not available at the time of this review. Limited low level evidence suggested that the laparoscopic approach might be advantageous regarding the donor's hospital stay, convalescence, pain, and resumption of employment.
Conclusions: The ASERNIP-S Review Group concluded that the evidence-base for laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy was inadequate to make a safety and efficacy recommendation. Clinical and research recommendations were developed regarding the introduction and current practice of this procedure in Australia.