Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34759522›Full record

ArticleIndian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of India

Trifecta and pentafecta outcomes following robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for hilar versus nonhilar tumors: A propensity-matched analysis.

Shantanu Tyagi, Gopal Sharma, Girdhar S Bora, Ravimohan S Mavuduru, Aditya Prakash Sharma, Sudheer Kumar Devana, Ujjwal Gorsi, Nandita Kakkar, Shrawan K Singh

Open access · diamondAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of India. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. How far has robot-assisted partial nephrectomy reached?Investigative and clinical urology · 2023
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Author Reply Re: Sharma G, Shah M, Ahluwalia P, Dasgupta P, Challacombe BJ, Bhandari M,Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of India
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Re: Sharma G, Shah M, Ahluwalia P, Dasgupta P, Challacombe BJ, Bhandari M,Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of India
    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

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Shantanu TyagiDepartment of Urology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Gopal SharmaDepartment of Urology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Girdhar S BoraDepartment of Urology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Ravimohan S MavuduruDepartment of Urology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Aditya Prakash SharmaDepartment of Urology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Sudheer Kumar DevanaDepartment of Urology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Ujjwal GorsiDepartment of Radiodiagnosis, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Nandita KakkarDepartment of Histopathology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Shrawan K SinghDepartment of Urology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionHilar tumors are a unique subset of complex renal masses posing a potential surgical challenge during partial nephrectomy. The outcomes of hilar masses have not been compared to non-hilar renal masses of similar RENAL nephrometry score (RNS). In this study, we analyzed the outcomes of hilar versus nonhilar masses after a propensity score matching.

methodsProspectively maintained database of patients who underwent robot assisted PN between November 2014 and December 2018 was abstracted for hilar and nonhilar tumors. We performed propensity matching for baseline variables such as age, sex, body mass index, comorbidities, preoperative glomerular filtration rate, and RNS for each patient on the basis of propensity scores.

resultsWe included 48 patients with hilar tumors and 153 with nonhilar tumors. On propensity matching, 41 patients were included in each group. The mean operative time (162.4 ± 48.9 min vs. 144.1 ± 38.8 min,

conclusionsHilar location was associated with poorer trifecta outcomes compared to the nonhilar tumors. However, hilar location

Identifiers

PMID34759522
PMCPMC8555573
OpenAlexW3203354615

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.