Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32856156›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2021

Transperitoneal vs retroperitoneal minimally invasive partial nephrectomy: comparison of perioperative outcomes and functional follow-up in a large multi-institutional cohort (The RECORD 2 Project).

Francesco Porpiglia, Andrea Mari, Daniele Amparore, Cristian Fiori, Alessandro Antonelli, Walter Artibani, Pierluigi Bove, Eugenio Brunocilla, Umberto Capitanio, Luigi Da Pozzo and 15 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing 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

27 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

25 authors.

Francesco PorpigliaDivision of Urology, Department of Oncology- School of Medicine, University of Turin, San Luigi Hospital, Orbassano, Turin, Italy.
Andrea MariDepartment of Urology, Unit of Oncologic Minimally-Invasive Urology and Andrology, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Daniele AmparoreDivision of Urology, Department of Oncology- School of Medicine, University of Turin, San Luigi Hospital, Orbassano, Turin, Italy.
Cristian FioriDivision of Urology, Department of Oncology- School of Medicine, University of Turin, San Luigi Hospital, Orbassano, Turin, Italy.
Alessandro AntonelliDepartment of Urology, Spedali Civili Hospital, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.
Walter ArtibaniDepartment of Urology, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata (A.O.U.I.), Verona, Italy.
Pierluigi BoveDepartment of Urology, University Hospital of Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.
Eugenio BrunocillaDepartment of Urology, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Umberto CapitanioUnit of Urology, Division of Experimental Oncology, URI-Urological Research Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.
Luigi Da PozzoDepartment of Urology, Papa Giovanni XXIII Hospital, Bergamo, Italy.
Fabrizio Di MaidaDivision of Urology, Department of Oncology- School of Medicine, University of Turin, San Luigi Hospital, Orbassano, Turin, Italy.
Paolo GonteroDivision of Urology, Department of Surgical Sciences, San Giovanni Battista Hospital, University of Studies of Torino, Turin, Italy.
Nicola LongoDepartment of Urology, University Federico II of Naples, Naples, Italy.
Giancarlo MarraDivision of Urology, Department of Surgical Sciences, San Giovanni Battista Hospital, University of Studies of Torino, Turin, Italy.
Bernardo RoccoDepartment of Urology, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda' Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico' Policlinico' University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Riccardo SchiavinaDepartment of Urology, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Claudio SimeoneDepartment of Urology, Spedali Civili Hospital, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.
Salvatore SiracusanoDepartment of Urology, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata (A.O.U.I.), Verona, Italy.
Riccardo TelliniDivision of Urology, Department of Oncology- School of Medicine, University of Turin, San Luigi Hospital, Orbassano, Turin, Italy.
Carlo TerroneDepartment of Urology, University of Genova, Genova, Italy.
Donata VillariDepartment of Urology, Unit of Urological Minimally Invasive Robotic Surgery and Renal Transplantation, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Vincenzo FicarraDepartment of Human and Paediatric Pathology, Gaetano Barresi, Urologic Section, University of Messina, Messina, Italy.
Marco CariniDivision of Urology, Department of Oncology- School of Medicine, University of Turin, San Luigi Hospital, Orbassano, Turin, Italy.
Andrea MinerviniDivision of Urology, Department of Oncology- School of Medicine, University of Turin, San Luigi Hospital, Orbassano, Turin, Italy. andreamine@libero.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1994-1324
RECORD 2 Project

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAim of this study was to evaluate and compare perioperative outcomes of transperitoneal (TP) and retroperitoneal (TR) approaches in a multi-institutional cohort of minimally invasive partial nephrectomy (MI-PN). MATERIAL AND

methodsAll consecutive patients undergone MI-PN for clinical T1 renal tumors at 26 Italian centers (RECORd2 project) between 01/2013 and 12/2016 were evaluated, collecting the pre-, intra-, and postoperative data. The patients were then stratified according to the surgical approach, TP or RP. A 1:1 propensity score (PS) matching was performed to obtain homogeneous cohorts, considering the age, gender, baseline eGFR, surgical indication, clinical diameter, and PADUA score.

results1669 patients treated with MI-PN were included in the study, 1256 and 413 undergoing TP and RP, respectively. After 1:1 PS matching according to the surgical access, 413 patients were selected from TP group to be compared with the 413 RP patients. Concerning intraoperative variables, no differences were found between the two groups in terms of surgical approach (lap/robot), extirpative technique (enucleation vs standard PN), hilar clamping, and ischemia time. Conversely, the TP group recorded a shorter median operative time in comparison with the RP group (115 vs 150 min), with a higher occurrence of intraoperative overall, 21 (5.0%) vs 9 (2.1%); p = 0.03, and surgical complications, 18 (4.3%) vs 7 (1.7%); p = 0.04. Concerning postoperative variables, the two groups resulted comparable in terms of complications, positive surgical margins and renal function, even if the RP group recorded a shorter median drainage duration and hospital length of stay (3 vs 2 for both variables), p < 0.0001.

conclusionsThe results of this study suggest that both TP and RP are feasible approaches when performing MI-PN, irrespectively from tumor location or surgical complexity. Notwithstanding longer operative times, RP seems to have a slighter intraoperative complication rate with earlier postoperative recovery when compared with TP.

Indexed as

Kidney NeoplasmsLaparoscopyFollow-Up StudiesHumansNephrectomyOperative TimeRetroperitoneal SpaceRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeMinimally invasive partial nephrectomyRenal cell carcinomaRetroperitonealSurgical approachTransperitoneal

Identifiers

PMID32856156
PMCPMC8263535

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.