Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30734072›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2019

Robotic versus laparoscopic radical nephrectomy: a large multi-institutional analysis (ROSULA Collaborative Group).

Uzoma A Anele, Michele Marchioni, Bo Yang, Giuseppe Simone, Robert G Uzzo, Clayton Lau, Maria C Mir, Umberto Capitanio, James Porter, Ken Jacobsohn and 31 more

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of urology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Transfusion Risk in Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic-Assisted Surgery: A Propensity Score Matched Case-Control Study across Surgical Disciplines.Transfusion medicine and hemotherapy : offizielles Organ der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Transfusionsmedizin und Immunhamatologie · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Robotic PartialJournal of endourology · 2023
    Review
  18. Article
  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

41 authors at 20 institutions in 7 countries.

Uzoma A AneleDivision of Urology, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA, USA.
Michele MarchioniDepartment of Urology, SS Annunziata Hospital, "G.D'Annunzio" University of Chieti, Chieti, Italy.
Bo YangDepartment of Urology, Changhai Hospital, Shanghai, China.
Giuseppe SimoneDepartment of Urology, IRCCS - "Regina Elena" National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy.
Robert G UzzoDivision of Urology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Clayton LauDivision of Urology, City of Hope Medical Center, Duarte, CA, USA.
Maria C MirDepartment of Urology, Fundacion Instituto Valenciano Oncologia, Valencia, Spain.
Umberto CapitanioUnit of Urology, Division of Oncology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.
James PorterSwedish Urology Group, Seattle, WA, USA.
Ken JacobsohnDepartment of Urology, Medical College Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA.
Nicolo de LuykUrology Centre, Guy's and St Thomas's NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Andrea MariDepartment of Urology, University of Florence, Careggi Hospital, Florence, Italy.
Kidon ChangDepartment of Urology, Yonsei Wonju, University College of Medicine, Wonju, Korea.
Cristian FioriDepartment of Urology, University of Turin-San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, Turin, Italy.
Jay SulekDepartment of Urology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Alexandre MottrieORSI Academy, Melle, Belgium.
Wesley WhiteDepartment of Urology, University of Tennessee Medical Center, Knoxville, TN, USA.
Sisto PerdonaSC Urologia, Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS, Fondazione Pascale, Napoli, Italy.
Giuseppe QuartoSC Urologia, Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS, Fondazione Pascale, Napoli, Italy.
Ahmet BindayiDepartment of Urology, UC San Diego Health System, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Akbar AshrafiInstitute of Urology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Luigi SchipsDepartment of Urology, SS Annunziata Hospital, "G.D'Annunzio" University of Chieti, Chieti, Italy.
Francesco BerardinelliDepartment of Urology, SS Annunziata Hospital, "G.D'Annunzio" University of Chieti, Chieti, Italy.
Chao ZhangDepartment of Urology, Changhai Hospital, Shanghai, China.
Michele GallucciDepartment of Urology, IRCCS - "Regina Elena" National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy.
Miguel Ramirez-BackhausDepartment of Urology, Fundacion Instituto Valenciano Oncologia, Valencia, Spain.
Alessandro LarcherUnit of Urology, Division of Oncology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.
Patrick KildayDivision of Urology, City of Hope Medical Center, Duarte, CA, USA.
Michael LiaoSwedish Urology Group, Seattle, WA, USA.
Peter LangenstroerDepartment of Urology, Medical College Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA.
Prokar DasguptaUrology Centre, Guy's and St Thomas's NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Ben ChallacombeUrology Centre, Guy's and St Thomas's NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Alexander KutikovDivision of Urology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Andrea MinerviniDepartment of Urology, University of Florence, Careggi Hospital, Florence, Italy.
Koon Ho RhaDepartment of Urology, Yonsei Wonju, University College of Medicine, Wonju, Korea.
Chandru P SundaramDepartment of Urology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Lance J HamptonDivision of Urology, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA, USA.
Francesco PorpigliaDepartment of Urology, University of Turin-San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, Turin, Italy.
Monish AronInstitute of Urology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Ithaar DerweeshDepartment of Urology, UC San Diego Health System, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Riccardo AutorinoDivision of Urology, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA, USA. ricautor@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7045-7725
Virginia Commonwealth University · USCity Of Hope National Medical Center · USFox Chase Cancer Center · USFundación Instituto Valenciano de Oncología · ESGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust · GBIndiana University School of MedicineIRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele · ITIstituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico · ITIstituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS "Fondazione G. Pascale" · ITMedical College of Wisconsin · USSecond Military Medical University · CNSwedish Medical Center · USUC San Diego Health System · USUniversity of Florence · ITUniversity of Southern California · USUniversity of Turin · ITYonsei University · KRKing's College London · GBOnze Lieve Vrouwziekenhuis Hospital · BEUniversity of Tennessee Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare the outcomes of robotic radical nephrectomy (RRN) to those of laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (LRN) for large renal masses.

methodsThis was a retrospective analysis of RRN and LRN cases performed for large (≥ cT2) renal masses from 2004 to 2017 and collected in the multi-institutional international database (ROSULA: RObotic SUrgery for LArge renal masses). Peri-operative, functional, and oncologic outcomes were compared between each approach. Descriptive analyses were performed and presented as medians with interquartile ranges. Inverse probability of treatment weighting-adjusted multivariable analyses were used to identify predictors of peri-operative complications. Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox regression models were used to assess survival outcomes.

resultsA total of 941 patients (RRN = 404, LRN = 537) were identified. There was no difference in terms of gender, age, and clinical tumor size. Over the study period, RRN had an annual increase of 11.75% (95% CI [7.34, 17.01] p < 0.001) and LRN had an annual decline of 5.39% (95% CI [-6.94, -3.86] p < 0.001). Patients undergoing RRN had higher BMI (27.6 [IQR 24.8-31.1] vs. 26.5 [24.1-30.0] kg/m

conclusionsThis study represents the largest known multi-center comparison between RRN and LRN. The two procedures seem to offer similar peri-operative outcomes. Notably, RRN has been increasingly utilized, especially in the setting of more advanced and surgically challenging disease without increasing the risk of peri-operative complications.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyRobotic Surgical ProceduresAgedFemaleHumansKidney NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedNephrectomyRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeComparative outcomesComplicationsLaparoscopicRadical nephrectomyRobotic

Identifiers

PMID30734072
OpenAlexW2914473554

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.