ArticleCurrent urology2020
Comparative Study Assessing Postoperative Renal Loss Using Two Different Partial Nephrectomy Techniques: Off-Clamp versus Standard On-Clamp Surgery.
Article in Current urology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Differences in pentafecta outcome between on-clamp and off-clamp robotic partial nephrectomy.Central European journal of urology · 2026Article
- Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy: Off-Clamp Versus on Clamp.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2022Article
- Erratum: Comparative Study Assessing Postoperative Renal Loss Using Two Different Partial Nephrectomy Techniques: Off-Clamp versus Standard On-Clamp Surgery: Erratum.Current urology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate a case-matched study comparing postoperative renal function using two surgical techniques: an off-clamp partial nephrectomy (PN) with the aid of the Altrus® device and a standard on-clamp laparoscopic PN. MATERIAL AND
methodsA total of 36 patients underwent PN. Eighteen had the off-clamp technique and 18 had the standard laparoscopic on-clamp PN. Demographic, clinical, radiological, and perioperative data were collected for analysis. An emphasis on renal function was made by analyzing both the perioperative and follow-up with estimated glomerular filtration rate and MAG3.
resultsThe median values did not signifcantly differ for age, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and hospital stay in the off-clamp versus on-clamp PN [62.5 (interquartile range, IQR 11) vs. 60 (IQR 16) years, 4 (IQR 2) vs. 5 (IQR 2) and 5 (IQR 1) vs. 4 (IQR 2) days], respectively. The median diameter of the tumors was 33 (IQR 23) versus 41 (IQR 28) mm (p = 0.63), with median R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry scores of 7 (IQR 2) versus 7 (IQR 2) (p = 0.33). There was greater blood loss in the Altrus® (375 vs. 200 ml, p = 0.037). The clamp time in the on-clamp group was 30 (IQR 6) minutes (range 22-68 minutes) compared to 0 minutes in the off-clamp group. There was no difference in hemoglobin or creatinine levels between the groups. However, the on-clamp group had a significant loss in ipsilateral renal function on the MAG3 scan (49 vs. 42%, p = 0.0001), whereas the off-clamp group had no difference (48 vs. 46%, p = 0.72).
conclusionsThe off-clamp method for PN is a feasible and safe option with better preservation of ipsilateral renal function when compared with on-clamp PN in the treatment of small renal masses.
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.