Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31788986›Full record

ArticleCancer medicine2020

Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for anatomically complex T1b renal tumors with a RENAL nephrometry score ≥7: A propensity score-based analysis.

Wen Deng, Junhua Li, Xiaoqiang Liu, Luyao Chen, Weipeng Liu, Xiaochen Zhou, Jingyu Zhu, Bin Fu, Gongxian Wang

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer medicine, 2020. 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
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Wen DengDepartment of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China.
Junhua LiDepartment of Urology, Third Hospital of Hangzhou, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China.
Xiaoqiang LiuDepartment of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China.
Luyao ChenDepartment of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China.
Weipeng LiuDepartment of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China.
Xiaochen ZhouDepartment of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China.
Jingyu ZhuDepartment of Urology, Third Hospital of Hangzhou, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China.
Bin FuDepartment of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China.ORCID 0000-0001-6686-7561
Gongxian WangDepartment of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China.
Nanchang University · CNThird People's Hospital of Hangzhou · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo present the perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RPN) compared with laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) for anatomically complex T1b renal tumors with RENAL nephrometry scores ≥7. PATIENTS AND

methodsOne hundred and seventy patients, during the study period, were retrospectively reviewed in our analysis according to inclusion criteria. Propensity score matching (PSM) (1:1) method was applied to impose restrictions on the potential baseline confounders. The comparisons of perioperative and functional outcomes between the RPN and LPN groups were conducted and analyzed after PSM, Kaplan-Meier analyses were performed to assess the differences about oncological outcomes between the two groups before and after PSM.

resultsOne hundred and nine and 61 T1b renal tumors with RENAL scores ≥7 were identified in the LPN and RPN groups, respectively. All significant differences in baseline characteristics disappeared after PSM. Except for 3 patients missing an appropriate pair, all the patients in the RPN group were successfully matched to 58 patients in the LPN group in a 1:1 ratio. Within the matched cohort, the RPN group was related to a significantly shorter mean operating time (OT) (P = .040), shorter mean warm ischemia time (WIT) (P = .023), and shorter median postoperative hospital stay (P = .023). The possibilities of surgical conversion, postoperative complication, and positive surgical margin were similar in the LPN and RPN groups. And there was also no significant difference in the pathological, renal functional, and oncological outcomes between the two series.

conclusionsFor patients with anatomically complex T1b renal tumors with a RENAL nephrometry score ≥7, RPN had an advantage over LPN in reducing OT, WIT, and postoperative hospital stay length without increasing the risk of complications and weakening the oncological control, while the two surgical methods were similar in renal functional preservation.

Indexed as

Propensity ScoreFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansKidney NeoplasmsLaparoscopyLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingNephrectomyRetrospective StudiesRobotic Surgical ProceduresSurvival RateTreatment Outcomelaparoscopypartial nephrectomyrenal tumorroboticsT1b

Identifiers

PMID31788986
PMCPMC6970028
OpenAlexW2992171353

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.