Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36035346›Full record

ReviewAsian journal of urology2022

New imaging technologies for robotic kidney cancer surgery.

Stefano Puliatti, Ahmed Eissa, Enrico Checcucci, Pietro Piazza, Marco Amato, Stefania Ferretti, Simone Scarcella, Juan Gomez Rivas, Mark Taratkin, Josè Marenco and 9 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Asian journal of urology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Robotic surgery in urology: Recent advances.Asian journal of urology · 2023
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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.

Stefano PuliattiUrology Department, University of Modena & Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy.
Ahmed EissaUrology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt.
Enrico CheccucciDepartment of Surgery, Candiolo Cancer Institute, FPO-IRCCS, Candiolo, Turin, Italy.
Pietro PiazzaDivision of Urology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Marco AmatoUrology Department, University of Modena & Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy.
Stefania FerrettiUrology Department, University of Modena & Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy.
Simone ScarcellaDepartment of Urology, Polytechnic University of Marche Region, Umberto I Hospital "Ospedali Riuniti", Ancona, Italy.
Juan Gomez RivasUro-technology and SoMe Working Group of the Young Academic Urologists Working Party, European Association of Urology, Arnhem, the Netherlands.
Mark TaratkinUro-technology and SoMe Working Group of the Young Academic Urologists Working Party, European Association of Urology, Arnhem, the Netherlands.
Josè MarencoUro-technology and SoMe Working Group of the Young Academic Urologists Working Party, European Association of Urology, Arnhem, the Netherlands.
Ines Belenchon RiveroUrology and Nephrology Department, Virgen del Rocío University Hospital, Manuel Siurot Sin Numero, Seville, Spain.
Karl-Friedrich KowalewskiDepartment of Urology and Urological Surgery, University Medical Centre Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany.
Giovanni CacciamaniUSC Institute of Urology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Ahmed El-SherbinyUrology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt.
Ahmed ZoeirUrology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt.
Abdelhamid M El-BahnasyUrology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt.
Ruben De GrooteORSI Academy, Melle, Belgium.
Alexandre MottrieORSI Academy, Melle, Belgium.
Salvatore MicaliUrology Department, University of Modena & Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Kidney cancers account for approximately 2% of all newly diagnosed cancer in 2020. Among the primary treatment options for kidney cancer, urologist may choose between radical or partial nephrectomy, or ablative therapies. Nowadays, robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) for the management of renal cancers has gained popularity, up to being considered the gold standard. However, RAPN is a challenging procedure with a steep learning curve. Methods: In this narrative review, different imaging technologies used to guide and aid RAPN are discussed. Results: Three-dimensional visualization technology has been extensively discussed in RAPN, showing its value in enhancing robotic-surgery training, patient counseling, surgical planning, and intraoperative guidance. Intraoperative imaging technologies such as intracorporeal ultrasound, near-infrared fluorescent imaging, and intraoperative pathological examination can also be used to improve the outcomes following RAPN. Finally, artificial intelligence may play a role in the field of RAPN soon. Conclusion: RAPN is a complex surgery; however, many imaging technologies may play an important role in facilitating it.

Indexed as

ImagingKidney cancerRoboticTechnology

Identifiers

PMID36035346
PMCPMC9399539

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.