Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34159103›Full record

ReviewTranslational andrology and urology2021

The future of "Retro" robotic partial nephrectomy.

David M Strauss, Randall Lee, Fenizia Maffucci, Daniel Abbott, Selma Masic, Alexander Kutikov

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Translational andrology and urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

David M StraussDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Temple University Health System, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Randall LeeDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Temple University Health System, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Fenizia MaffucciDepartment of Urology, SUNY Downstate College of Medicine, Brooklyn, NY, USA.
Daniel AbbottDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Temple University Health System, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Selma MasicDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Temple University Health System, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Alexander KutikovDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Temple University Health System, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Fox Chase Cancer Center · USSUNY Downstate Health Sciences University · USTemple University Health System · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Partial nephrectomy (PN) is the gold standard treatment for appropriately selected renal masses. Recent surgical advancements and adoption of the robotic technique has led to greater adoption of nephron-sparing surgery. Robotic PN was initially described via the transperitoneal (TP) approach, however, retroperitoneal (RP) access is possible and in some cases more desirable. In the RP approach, the kidney is accessed from its posterior surface and the intraperitoneal space is avoided. The RP approach to PN has the benefit of avoiding intraperitoneal viscera and colonic mobilization in patients with extensive prior abdominal surgery. The technique also eliminates the need for renal unit rotation in patients with posterior tumors and affords access to masses directly posterior to the renal hilum. The RP and TP approach to PN have shown similar oncologic and perioperative outcomes. Several recent studies have reported shorter operative times and lengths of stay (LOS) with comparable warm ischemia times for the RP approach when compared to transperitoneal PN (tPN). Given the indispensable deliverables of this approach in select patients, robotic retroperitoneal PN (rPN) should be in the armamentarium of a versatile urologic kidney surgeon. This review describes the current state of rPN and compares the indications and outcomes of the TP and RP approaches.

Indexed as

partial nephrectomy (PN)renal massRetroperitoneoscopicrobotic partial nephrectomytransperitoneal partial nephrectomy

Identifiers

PMID34159103
PMCPMC8185662
OpenAlexW2998039365

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.