Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32562044›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2021

Robotic-assisted kidney transplantation in obese recipients compared to non-obese recipients: the European experience.

Thomas Prudhomme, Jean Baptiste Beauval, Marine Lesourd, Mathieu Roumiguié, Karel Decaestecker, Graziano Vignolini, Riccardo Campi, Sergio Serni, Angelo Territo, Luis Gausa and 13 more

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

Article in World journal of urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Living-Donor Kidney Transplantation: Comparison of Robotic-Assisted Versus Conventional Open Technique.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Robotic kidney transplantation.Nature reviews. Urology · 2024
    Review
  15. [Robot-assisted kidney transplantation-what is new?]Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024
    Review
  16. Observational
  17. Review
  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

23 authors at 8 institutions in 6 countries.

Thomas PrudhommeDepartment of Urology and Kidney Transplantation, University Hospital of Rangueil, Toulouse, France. prudhomme.t@chu-toulouse.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3601-9339
Jean Baptiste BeauvalDepartment of Urology, Clinique La Croix du Sud, Toulouse, France.
Marine LesourdDepartment of Urology and Kidney Transplantation, University Hospital of Rangueil, Toulouse, France.
Mathieu RoumiguiéDepartment of Urology and Kidney Transplantation, University Hospital of Rangueil, Toulouse, France.
Karel DecaesteckerDepartment of Urology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
Graziano VignoliniDepartment of Urology, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Riccardo CampiDepartment of Urology, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Sergio SerniDepartment of Urology, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Angelo TerritoDepartment of Urology, Fundaciò Puigvert, Autonoma University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Luis GausaDepartment of Urology, Fundaciò Puigvert, Autonoma University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Volkan TugcuDepartment of Urology, Bakirkoy Dr. Sadi Konuk Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
Selcuk SahinDepartment of Urology, Bakirkoy Dr. Sadi Konuk Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
Antonio AlcarazDepartment of Urology, Hospital Clinic, Barcelona, Spain.
Mireia MusqueraDepartment of Urology, Hospital Clinic, Barcelona, Spain.
Michael StockleDepartment of Urology, Saarland University, HomburgSaar, Germany.
Martin JanssenDepartment of Urology, Saarland University, HomburgSaar, Germany.
Paolo FornaraDepartment of Urology, Halle University Hospital (Saale), Halle, Germany.
Nasreldin MohammedDepartment of Urology, Halle University Hospital (Saale), Halle, Germany.
Arnaud Del BelloDepartment of Nephrology and Organ Transplantation, University Hospital of Rangueil, Toulouse, France.
Nassim KamarDepartment of Nephrology and Organ Transplantation, University Hospital of Rangueil, Toulouse, France.
Federico SallustoDepartment of Urology and Kidney Transplantation, University Hospital of Rangueil, Toulouse, France.
Alberto BredaDepartment of Urology, Fundaciò Puigvert, Autonoma University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Nicolas DoumercDepartment of Urology and Kidney Transplantation, University Hospital of Rangueil, Toulouse, France.
Hôpital Rangueil · FRPuigvert Foundation · ESUniversity of Florence · ITBakırköy Dr.Sadi Konuk Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi · TRHospital Clínic de Barcelona · ESSaarland University · DEUniversity Hospital in Halle · DEGhent University Hospital · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe main objective was to compare minor (Clavien I-II) and major (Clavien ≥ III) intra- and postoperative complications of living donor robotic assisted kidney transplantation (RAKT) in obese (≥ 30 kg/m

methodsFor the present retrospective study, we reviewed the multi-institutional ERUS-RAKT database to select consecutive living donor RAKT recipients. Functional outcomes, intra- and postoperative complications were compared between obese, overweight and non-overweight recipients.

results169 living donor RAKTs were performed, by 10 surgeons, from July 2015 to September 2018 in the 8 European centers. 32 (18.9%) recipients were obese, 66 (39.1%) were overweight and 71 (42.0%) were non-overweight. Mean follow-up was 1.2 years. There were no major intra-operative complications in either study group. Conversion to open surgery occurred in 1 obese recipient, in 2 overweight recipients and no conversion occurred in non-overweight recipients (p = 0.3). Minor and major postoperative complications rates were similar in the 3 groups. At one-year of follow-up, median eGFR was similar in all groups [54 (45-60) versus 57 (46-70) versus 63 (49-78) ml/min/1.73 m

conclusionRAKT in obese recipients is safe, compared to non-overweight recipients and yields very good function, when it performed at high-volume referral centers by highly trained transplant teams.

Indexed as

Robotic Surgical ProceduresAdultFemaleHumansKidney TransplantationMaleMiddle AgedObesityPostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesKidney transplantationObese patientsRobot-assisted kidney transplantationRobotic surgeryVascular anastomosis

Identifiers

PMID32562044
OpenAlexW3036006170

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.