ArticleWorld journal of urology2016
Minilaparoscopy in urology: initial results after 32 cases.
Article in World journal of urology, 2016. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe use of minilaparoscopic instruments has gained interest in recent years, permitting a less invasive treatment for many surgical procedures. Its application in urological surgeries has not been established yet.
methodsBetween November 2012 and December 2014, 32 patients underwent minilaparoscopic surgeries, using 3.5-mm instruments. The procedures performed included pyeloplasties (16 cases), radical nephrectomies (2), simple nephrectomies (4), renal cyst decortication (5), ureterolithotomy (2) ureteral reimplantation (2) and partial ureterectomy (1).
resultsAll the procedures were performed minilaparoscopically, except for one simple nephrectomy and one renal cyst decortication that were converted to a standard laparoscopic approach, due to intensive perioperative bleeding. One pyeloplasty had to be reoperated for a urinary fistula repair. All the patients had good-to-excellent cosmetic outcomes, except for one patient who developed keloids at her scars. Functional results were comparable to the ones described in the literature.
conclusionMinilaparoscopy is a feasible option for patients and physicians searching for a even less invasive procedure compared with the laparoscopic approach, with better cosmetic and the same functional and oncologic outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.