ArticleCentral European journal of urology2019
Evaluating the impact of resident involvement during the laparoscopic nephrectomy.
Article in Central European journal of urology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Innovations in Urologic Surgical Training.Current urology reports · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLaparoscopic nephrectomy (LN) is the most performed laparoscopic procedure by urologic residents (Res). A large amount of data exists on laparoscopic nephrectomies in terms of safety and surgical outcomes, but only a little is known about the influence of residents. The purpose of this study was to evaluate this influence on the clinical outcome of a laparoscopic nephrectomy. MATERIAL AND
methodsRetrospectively, patients who had undergone a LN between 2010 and 2018 were assessed. Data included patient demographics, date of surgery, pre- and postoperative results and complications. The patients who had undergone a LN were divided into two groups: one where residents were involved and another group where only a staff surgeon (Sur) performed the operation. All training residents had a questionnaire sent to them to evaluate their role during the LN.
resultsA total of 229 patients met the study criteria, of which 78 patients were operated together with a resident and 151 by a staff surgeon alone. Both groups were homogeneous in terms of age, comorbidities, left/right sided LN and tumor-stage. Between these two groups, no significant differences were observed in median estimated blood loss (Res 87 ml vs. Sur 100 ml), intraoperative adverse events (Res 10.3% vs. Sur 6% p = 0.24), conversion to open surgery (Res 6.4% vs. Sur 6%) and high-grade postoperative complications (Res 3.9% vs. Sur 4.6%). However, when a resident participated, the LN lasted on average 20 minutes longer (Res mean 130 min vs. Sur 110 min p ≤0.001).
conclusionsOur data shows that involvement of a resident in laparoscopic nephrectomy has no effect on the clinical outcome. Therefore, it is safe to perform a laparoscopic nephrectomy together with a resident, but it is important to take the additional surgical time into account.
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.