ReviewCurrent urology reports2021
Living Donor Robot-Assisted Kidney Transplantation: a New Standard of Care?
Review in Current urology reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robot-assisted kidney transplantation in living and deceased donors: a six-year experience.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Robot-assisted kidney transplantation in obese recipients: wound-risk reduction, graft safety, and access implications.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Robotic kidney transplantation.Nature reviews. Urology · 2024Review
- Development and outcomes of surgical and urological kidney transplantation programs in Germany: a total population analysis from 2006 to 2021.World journal of urology · 2024Article
- Trends in kidney transplantation and living donor nephrectomy in Germany: a total population analysis from 2006 to 2021.World journal of urology · 2024Article
- Robot-assisted third kidney transplantation in a patient with exhausted iliac fossae: A case report.Therapeutic advances in urologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewRobot-assisted kidney transplantation (RAKT) has the potential to combine the advantages of minimally invasive surgery with the best renal replacement treatment. Over the last decade, the results were encouraging, as surgical and functional outcomes seem optimal in living donation. Recent studies focused on the comparison with open kidney transplantation (OKT), special situations such as obese patients or multiple vessels grafts and optimization of the technique to increase its surgical indications. RECENT
findingsRelative to OKT, RAKT has longer rewarming time and operative time, but lower intraoperative blood loss. Wound-related events and postoperative pain decrease with robotic technique. This has been also demonstrated in obese patients, where RAKT may be particularly beneficial. No significant difference was found in graft function, graft survival, and patient survival with RAKT and OKT in short- and mid-term follow-up. A multiple vessels graft should not be considered a contraindication to robotic surgery. Intracorporeal cooling systems for regional hypothermia have not been applied in RAKT yet. Future challenges will be the inclusion of patients with atheromatous iliac arteries and transplantation programs for deceased donors. A randomized-controlled trial is needed to definitively confirm the findings of retrospective and prospective cohort studies. The implementation of the procedure in more centers depends on broader indications, which might ultimately decrease procedure-related costs. To guarantee the applicability of RAKT from deceased donors, it is fundamental to optimize the graft cooling systems and to include recipients with atheromatous iliac arteries.
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.