Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32569571›Full record

ArticleCanadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada2020

Canadian Update on Surgical Procedures (CUSP) Urology Group consensus for intraoperative hemostasis during minimally invasive partial nephrectomy.

Douglas C Cheung, Christopher J D Wallis, Simon Possee, Camilla Tajzler, Maurice Anidjar, Keith Barrett, Tom Deklaj, Darrel E Drachenberg, Howard Evans, Christopher French and 22 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. PEG-coated patch parenchymal closure technique and initial outcomes during minimally invasive partial nephrectomy.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2022
    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

32 authors.

Douglas C CheungDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Christopher J D WallisDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Simon PosseeDivision of Medicine, The Rotherham Foundation Trust, South Yorkshire, United Kingdom.
Camilla TajzlerDivision of Urology, McMaster Institute of Urology, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Maurice AnidjarDivision of Urology, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Keith BarrettKitchener Urology Partners, Kitchener, ON, Canada.
Tom DeklajDepartment of Surgery (Urology), Western University (Windsor Regional Hospital), London, ON, Canada.
Darrel E DrachenbergSection of Urology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB Canada.
Howard EvansDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Alberta, AB, Canada.
Christopher FrenchDiscipline of Surgery (Urology), Memorial University, St. John's, NL, Canada.
Geoffrey GottoDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Jason IzardDepartment of Urology, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Umesh JainDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Jun KawakamiDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Girish S KulkarniDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Jason LeeDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Jeffrey McCrackenVictoria Urology, Victoria, BC, Canada.
Thomas McGregorDepartment of Urology, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Patrick O RichardDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke and Centre de Recherche du CHUS, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada.
Neal E RoweDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Robert SabbaghDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke and Centre de Recherche du CHUS, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada.
Blair St MartinDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Alberta, AB, Canada.
Stephanie TatzelDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, McMaster University (Niagara Health), Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Naji ToumaDepartment of Urology, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Hugues WidmerSection of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Montreal Hospital Centre (CHUM), Montreal, QC, Canada.
Joshua WiesenthalKelowna General Hospital, Kelowna, BC, Canada.
Brian YangDepartment of Urological Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Kevin C ZornSection of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Montreal Hospital Centre (CHUM), Montreal, QC, Canada.
Anil KapoorDivision of Urology, McMaster Institute of Urology, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Antonio FinelliDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Raj SatkunasivamCenter for Outcomes Research, Houston Methodist Hospital, Medical Center, Houston, TX, United States.
Canadian Update on Surgical Procedures (CUSP) Urology Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPartial nephrectomy remains the gold standard in the management of small renal masses. However, minimally invasive partial nephrectomy (MIPN) is associated with a steep learning curve, and optimal, standardized techniques for time-efficient hemostasis are poorly described. Given the relative lack of evidence, the goal was to describe a set of actionable guiding principles, through an expert working panel, for urologists to approach hemostasis without compromising warm ischemia or oncological outcomes.

methodsA three-step modified Delphi method was used to achieve expert agreement on the best practices for hemostasis in MIPN. Panelists were recruited from the Canadian Update on Surgical Procedures (CUSP) Urology Group, which represent all provinces, academic and community practices, and fellowship-and non-fellowship-trained surgeons. Thirty-two (round 1) and 46 (round 2) panellists participated in survey questionnaires, and 22 attended the in-person consensus meeting.

resultsAn initial literature search of 945 articles (230 abstracts) underwent screening and yielded 24 preliminary techniques. Through sequential survey assessment and in-person discussion, a total of 11 strategies were approved. These are temporally distributed prior to tumor resection (five principles), during tumor resection (two principles), and during renorrhaphy (four principles).

conclusionsGiven the variability in tumor size, depth, location, and vascularity, coupled with limitations of laparoscopic equipment, achieving consistent hemostasis in MIPN may be challenging. Despite over two decades of MIPN experience, limited evidence exists to guide clinicians. Through a three-step Delphi method and rigorous iterative review with a panel of experts, we ascertained a guiding checklist of principles for newly beginning and practicing urologists to reference.

Identifiers

PMID32569571
PMCPMC7492033

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.