Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34406630›Full record

ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2022

Single- versus multi-port robotic partial nephrectomy: a comparative analysis of perioperative outcomes and analgesic requirements.

Zachary A Glaser, Zachary R Burns, Andrew M Fang, Ava Saidian, Cristina Magi-Galluzzi, Jeffrey W Nix, Soroush Rais-Bahrami

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Review
  9. Observational
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. How far has robot-assisted partial nephrectomy reached?Investigative and clinical urology · 2023
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Zachary A GlaserDepartment of Urology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Faculty Office Tower 1107, 510 20th Street South, Birmingham, AL, 35294, USA. zglaser@uabmc.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6038-0987
Zachary R BurnsDepartment of Urology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Faculty Office Tower 1107, 510 20th Street South, Birmingham, AL, 35294, USA.
Andrew M FangDepartment of Urology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Faculty Office Tower 1107, 510 20th Street South, Birmingham, AL, 35294, USA.
Ava SaidianDepartment of Urology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Faculty Office Tower 1107, 510 20th Street South, Birmingham, AL, 35294, USA.
Cristina Magi-GalluzziDepartment of Pathology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Jeffrey W NixDepartment of Urology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Faculty Office Tower 1107, 510 20th Street South, Birmingham, AL, 35294, USA.
Soroush Rais-BahramiDepartment of Urology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Faculty Office Tower 1107, 510 20th Street South, Birmingham, AL, 35294, USA.
University of Alabama at Birmingham · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Evidence supporting the safe use of the single-port (SP) robot for partial nephrectomy is scarce. The purpose of this study was to compare perioperative outcomes for patients undergoing robotic assisted SP vs multi-port (MP) partial nephrectomy (PN) in a time-matched cohort. All patients with clinically localized renal masses who underwent robotic PN from January 2019 to March 2020 were evaluated. Patients were stratified according to SP vs MP approach. Postoperative analgesia was administered in accordance with department-wide opioid stewardship protocol and outpatient opioid use was tracked. Total of 78 patients underwent robotic PN with 26 patients in the SP cohort. The majority of renal masses had low-complexity (53, 67.9%) R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry scores, without a significant difference between the two cohorts (p = 0.19). A retroperitoneal approach was performed in 16 (20.5%) patients overall, though more commonly via the SP robotic approach (13 vs 3, p < 0.001). Mean operative time for SP cases was 183.9 ± 63.5 min vs 208.6 ± 65.0 min in the MP cohort (p = 0.12). Rate of conversion to radical nephrectomy was 3.8% vs 9.6% for SP vs MP cases, respectively, (p = 0.37). The majority of patients were discharged on postoperative day one (67.9%) irrespective of operative approach (p = 0.60). There were no differences in inpatient milligram morphine equivalents administered (MME, p = 0.08) or outpatient postoperative MME prescribed (p = 0.21) between the two cohorts. In this retrospective single-institution study, SP robotic approach offers similar short-term perioperative outcomes to MP platforms for minimally invasive, nephron-sparing surgery. Using the SP system was not associated with a reduction in postoperative opioid analgesic requirements.

Indexed as

Kidney NeoplasmsRoboticsRobotic Surgical ProceduresAnalgesics, OpioidHumansNephrectomyRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeAnalgesics, OpioidMinimally invasive surgeryOpioid stewardshipPain scalesRenal cell carcinomaRobotic surgery

Identifiers

PMID34406630
OpenAlexW3195105610

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.