***TASK***
the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature

***INPUT***
the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature

***OUTPUT***
the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature

***DOCUMENTATION***

***EXAMPLES***

Input: We included three studies (179 participants) comparing LESS-DN with laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. There were no significant differences between LESS-DN and laparoscopic donor nephrectomy for mean operative time (2 studies, 79 participants: MD 6.36 min, 95% CI -11.85 to 24.57), intra-operative blood loss (2 studies, 79 participants: MD -8.31 mL, 95% CI -23.70 to 7.09), or complication rates (3 studies, 179 participants: RD 0.05, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.14). Pain scores at discharge were significantly less in the LESS-DN group (2 studies, 79 participants: MD -1.19, 95% CI -2.17 to -0.21). For all other outcomes (length of hospital stay; length of time to return to normal activities; blood transfusions; conversion to another form of surgery; warm ischaemia time; total analgesic requirement; graft loss) there were no significant differences observed. Although risk of bias was assessed as low overall, one study was assessed at high risk of attrition bias. Given the small number and size of included studies it is uncertain whether LESS-DN is better than laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Well designed and adequately powered RCTs are needed to better define the role of LESS-DN as a minimally invasive option for kidney donor surgery.
Output:

We searched to literature up to January 2016 and found three studies (reported in 5 publications that involved 179 participants) that compared these two types of kidney donor surgeries. LESS-DN was found to be as safe as standard keyhole surgical techniques; pain at discharge was significantly less with LESS-DN, however there were no other discernible benefits over the standard technique. Overall, we found there was a low risk of bias for all studies; however, funding sources were not reported in two or three studies, and there was high risk of attrition bias in one study. The small number of studies with few participants eligible for inclusion indicates a need for future research in this area.