Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30327272›Full record

SynthesisEuropean urology2019

Ischemia Techniques in Nephron-sparing Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Surgical, Oncological, and Functional Outcomes.

Francesco Greco, Riccardo Autorino, Vincenzo Altieri, Steven Campbell, Vincenzo Ficarra, Inderbir Gill, Alexander Kutikov, Alex Mottrie, Vincenzo Mirone, Hendrik van Poppel

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European urology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The evolving management of small renal masses.Nature reviews. Urology · 2024
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

10 authors.

Francesco GrecoDepartment of Urology, Humanitas Gavazzeni, Bergamo, Italy. Electronic address: francesco_greco@ymail.com.
Riccardo AutorinoDivision of Urology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA.
Vincenzo AltieriDepartment of Urology, Humanitas Gavazzeni, Bergamo, Italy.
Steven CampbellGlickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Vincenzo FicarraDepartment of Human Pathology of Adult and Evolutive Age, University of Messina, Messina, Italy.
Inderbir GillCatherine and Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California Institute of Urology, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Alexander KutikovDivision of Urologic Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Temple University Health System, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Alex MottrieDepartment of Urology, Onze-Lieve-Vrouw Hospital, Aalst, Belgium.
Vincenzo MironeDepartment of Urology, Federico II University, Naples, Italy.
Hendrik van PoppelKatholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Funding

USC/NORRIS COMPREHENSIVE CANCER CENTER (CORE) SUPPORTP30CA014089 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI Fumito Ito · 1985 to 2026
$181.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA014089
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextThe optimal ischemia technique at partial nephrectomy (PN) for renal masses is yet to be determined.

objectiveTo summarize and analyze the current evidence about surgical, oncological, and functional outcomes after different ischemia techniques (cold, warm, and zero ischemia) at PN. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A computerized systematic literature search was performed by using PubMed (MEDLINE) and Science Direct. Identification and selection of the studies were conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) criteria. Outcomes of interest were estimated blood loss (EBL), overall complications, positive surgical margins, local tumor recurrence, and renal function preservation. Meta-analysis and forest-plot diagrams were performed. Overall pooled estimates, together with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), of the incidence of all parameters were obtained using a random effect model (RE-Model) on the log transformed means (MLN), proportion, or standardized mean change, as deemed appropriate. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: One hundred and fifty-six studies were included. No clinically meaningful differences were found in terms of EBL after cold (mean: 215.5; 95% CI: 154.2-276.8m), warm (mean: 201.8; 95% CI: 175.0-228.7ml), or zero (mean: 261.2; 95% CI: 171.0-351.3ml) ischemia technique. Overall, postoperative complications were recorded in 14.1% (95% CI: 6.7-27.4), 11.1% (95% CI: 10.0-12.3), and 9.7% (95% CI: 7.7-12.2) of patients after cold, warm, and zero ischemia (p<0.01), respectively. Positive surgical margins were recorded in 4.8% (95% CI: 1.9-10.9), 4.0% (95% CI: 3.4-4.8), and 5.6% (95% CI: 3.1-9.8) of patients after cold, warm, and zero ischemia (p<0.01), respectively. Local recurrence was recorded in 3.2% (95% CI: 1.9-5.2) and 3.1% (95% CI: 0.7-11.5) of patients after warm and zero ischemia (p<0.01), respectively. The log

conclusionsThe effect of ischemia technique at PN is still debatable and subject to confounding by several factors, namely, patients' selection criteria, surgical technique used, and percentage of functional parenchyma spared during surgery. These confounders bias available evidence and were addressed by only a small part of available studies. Unfortunately, the overall quality of literature evidences and the high risk of selection bias limit the possibility of any causal interpretation about the relationship between the ischemia technique used and surgical, oncological, or functional outcomes. Thus, none of the available ischemia technique could be recommended over the other. PATIENT SUMMARY: The present analysis shows that none of the available ischemia techniques, namely, cold, warm, or zero ischemia, is universally superior to the others, and other factors play a role in the surgical outcome.

Indexed as

Blood Loss, SurgicalCold IschemiaHumansKidney NeoplasmsMargins of ExcisionNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeoplasm, ResidualNephrectomyOrgan Sparing TreatmentsPostoperative ComplicationsRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeWarm IschemiaIschemia techniquesNephron-sparing surgeryOutcomesRenal tumor

Identifiers

PMID30327272
PMCPMC9084636

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.