Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35515269›Full record

ReviewEuropean urology open science2022

Retroperitoneal Robot-assisted Partial Nephrectomy: A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis of Comparative Outcomes.

Umberto Carbonara, Fabio Crocerossa, Riccardo Campi, Alessandro Veccia, Giovanni E Cacciamani, Daniele Amparore, Enrico Checcucci, Davide Loizzo, Angela Pecoraro, Michele Marchioni and 9 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in European urology open science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
7.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

19 authors at 12 institutions in 2 countries.

Umberto CarbonaraDivision of Urology, VCU Health, Richmond, VA, USA.
Fabio CrocerossaDivision of Urology, VCU Health, Richmond, VA, USA.
Riccardo CampiUnit of Urological Robotic Surgery and Renal Transplantation, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Alessandro VecciaDivision of Urology, VCU Health, Richmond, VA, USA.
Giovanni E CacciamaniUSC Institute of Urology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Daniele AmparoreDepartment of Urology, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, University of Turin, Orbassano, Turin, Italy.
Enrico CheccucciDepartment of Urology, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, University of Turin, Orbassano, Turin, Italy.
Davide LoizzoDepartment of Emergency and Organ Transplantation-Urology, Andrology and Kidney Transplantation Unit, University of Bari, Bari, Italy.
Angela PecoraroDepartment of Urology, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, University of Turin, Orbassano, Turin, Italy.
Michele MarchioniDepartment of Medical, Oral and Biotechnological Sciences, G. d'Annunzio University of Chieti, Chieti, Italy.
Chiara LonatiUrology Unit, Department of Medical and Surgical Specialties, Radiological Science, and Public Health, ASST Spedali Civili Hospital, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.
Chandru P SundaramDepartment of Urology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Reza MehrazinDepartment of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
James PorterSwedish Urology Group, Seattle, WA, USA.
Jihad H KaoukDepartment of Urology, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Francesco PorpigliaDepartment of Urology, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, University of Turin, Orbassano, Turin, Italy.
Pasquale DitonnoDepartment of Emergency and Organ Transplantation-Urology, Andrology and Kidney Transplantation Unit, University of Bari, Bari, Italy.
Riccardo AutorinoDivision of Urology, VCU Health, Richmond, VA, USA.
YAU-EAU Kidney Cancer Working Group
University of Bari Aldo Moro · ITUniversity of Turin · ITChildren's Hospital of Richmond at VCU · USUniversity of Brescia · ITCleveland Clinic · USIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai · USIndiana University School of MedicineOspedale San Luigi Gonzaga · ITSwedish Medical Center · USUniversity of Chieti-Pescara · ITUniversity of Florence · ITUniversity of Southern California · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Context: Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) has gained increasing popularity as primary minimally invasive surgical treatment for localized renal tumors, and it has preferably been performed with a transperitoneal approach. However, the retroperitoneal approach represents an alternative approach given potential advantages. Objective: To provide an updated analysis of the comparative outcomes of retroperitoneal RAPN (R-RAPN) versus transperitoneal RAPN (T-RAPN). Evidence acquisition: A systematic review of the literature was performed up to September 2021 using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) recommendations. A sensitivity analysis was performed considering only matched-pair studies. Evidence synthesis: Seventeen studies, which were published between 2013 and 2021, were retrieved. None of them was a randomized clinical trial. Among the 6,266 patients included in the meta-analysis, 2261 (36.1%) and 4,005 (63.9%) underwent R-RAPN and T-RAPN, respectively. No significant difference was found in terms of baseline features. The T-RAPN group presented a higher rate of male patients (odds ratio [OR]: 0.86, Conclusions: R-RAPN offers similar surgical outcomes to T-RAPN, and it carries potential advantages in terms of shorter OT and LOS. Available evidence remains limited by the lack of randomized clinical trials. Patient summary: In this review of the literature, we looked at comparative outcomes of two surgical approaches to robot-assisted partial nephrectomy. We found that the retroperitoneal technique offers similar surgical outcomes to the transperitoneal one, with potential advantages in terms of shorter operative time and length of hospital stay.

Indexed as

RetroperitonealReview, Meta-analysisRobot-assisted partial nephrectomySurgical approachTransperitoneal

Identifiers

PMID35515269
PMCPMC9062267
OpenAlexW4224437444

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.