ArticleSisli Etfal Hastanesi tip bulteni2021
Minimally Invasive Partial Nephrectomy in the Era of Robotic Surgery.
Article in Sisli Etfal Hastanesi tip bulteni, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- One-year healthcare costs after robotic-assisted and laparoscopic partial and radical nephrectomy: a cohort study.BMC health services research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe objectives of the study were to compare the operative features, complication rates, functional, and pathological outcomes of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) and robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RPN).
methodsThe demographics, perioperative, and follow-up data of patients who underwent partial nephrectomy between January 2007 and April 2020 with minimally invasive methods were retrospectively analyzed. Patients with minimum 3 months follow-up were enrolled in the present study. Perioperative and pathological outcomes were compared between the patients underwent LPN and RPN.
resultsA total of 85 patients (65 LPN and 20 RPN) were included in the present study. The mean patient age at the time of surgery was 56.31±10.48 years. Female-to-male ratio was 30/55. Patients in the RPN group had higher R.E.N.A.L. and PADUA scores (p=0.039 and p=0.030, respectively). Median warm ischemia time, median operation time, median intraoperative estimated blood loss, mean post-operative hemoglobin change, and median hospitalization time were similar between groups (p=0.133, p=0.753, p=0.079, p=0.882, and p=0.473, respectively). Artery-only clamping rate was significantly higher in RPN group (p=0.033). The cost of RPN was significantly greater than LPN (p<0.001). Transfusion rates, post-operative complication rates, percent of estimated glomerular filtration rate change at the last follow-up, and trifecta achievement were similar between the groups (p=0.622, p=0.238, p=0.428, and p=0.349, respectively).
conclusionIn this series, similar perioperative and functional outcomes were achieved by RPN compared to LPN in more complex 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.