Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27663423›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2017

Robotic and open partial nephrectomy for localized renal tumors larger than 7 cm: a single-center experience.

Ercan Malkoc, Daniel Ramirez, Onder Kara, Matthew J Maurice, Ryan J Nelson, Peter A Caputo, Jihad H Kaouk

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of urology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Epidemiology and screening for renal cancer.World journal of urology · 2018
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 4 countries.

Ercan MalkocDepartment of Urology, Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave., Q10-1, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
Daniel RamirezDepartment of Urology, Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave., Q10-1, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
Onder KaraDepartment of Urology, Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave., Q10-1, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
Matthew J MauriceDepartment of Urology, Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave., Q10-1, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
Ryan J NelsonDepartment of Urology, Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave., Q10-1, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
Peter A CaputoDepartment of Urology, Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave., Q10-1, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
Jihad H KaoukDepartment of Urology, Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave., Q10-1, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA. kaoukj@ccf.org.
Cleveland Clinic · USAmasya Üniversitesi · TRSağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare perioperative outcomes between robotic partial nephrectomy and open partial nephrectomy for localized >7 cm tumors.

methodsWe identified patients in our institutional review boards approved database who underwent robotic partial nephrectomy or open partial nephrectomy for treatment of renal tumors >7 cm in size between January 2009 and August 2015. The operative-postoperative outcomes and complications were compared between groups.

resultsThe number of patients with >7 cm renal tumors treated at our center with robotic partial nephrectomy and open partial nephrectomy were 54 and 56, respectively. Patients' demographics and tumor characteristics were similar between groups. Likewise, there were no significant difference between the groups in duration of operation, positive surgical margin rates and incidence of malignant disease rates. Median ischemia time was lower in robotic partial nephrectomy group (31.5 vs. 35 min., p = 0.02). Patients undergoing robotic partial nephrectomy had significantly lower intraoperative blood transfusion rates (9.4 vs. 30.4 %, p = 0.008) and shorter length of hospital stay (3.5 vs. 5.3 days, p < 0.001). The incidence of overall complications (robotic arm, 18.5 % vs. open arm, 28.6 %, p = 0.26) and major complications (robotic arm, 3.7 % vs. open arm, 12.5 %, p = 0.16) was comparable between the two groups. The readmission rate within 30-days after discharge was higher in open partial nephrectomy group (p = 0.03). There was no difference in the median percentage estimated glomerular filtration rate preservation and chronic kidney disease upstaging between groups.

conclusionsLocalized renal tumors >7 cm and amenable to partial nephrectomy can be considered suitable for robotic approach.

Indexed as

AgedCarcinoma, Renal CellCold IschemiaDatabases, FactualFemaleGlomerular Filtration RateHumansIncidenceKidney NeoplasmsLength of StayMaleMargins of ExcisionMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingNephrectomyPatient ReadmissionLarger than 7 cm kidney tumorNephrectomyPartial nephrectomyPerioperative outcomesRobotic surgical procedures

Identifiers

PMID27663423
OpenAlexW2523660671

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.