Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36092844›Full record

ArticleTranslational andrology and urology2022

Propensity-matched pair analysis of safety and efficacy between laparoscopic and open radical nephrectomy for the treatment of large renal masses (>10 cm): a retrospective cohort study.

Xinwen Nian, Huamao Ye, Wei Zhang, Kaixuan Zhang, Xu Gao, Bo Yang, Jianguo Hou, Chuanliang Xu, Linhui Wang, Yan Wang and 2 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Translational andrology and urology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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

12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Xinwen Nian *Department of Urology, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Huamao Ye *Department of Urology, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Wei Zhang *Department of Urology, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Kaixuan ZhangDepartment of Urology, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Xu GaoDepartment of Urology, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Bo YangDepartment of Urology, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Jianguo HouDepartment of Urology, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Chuanliang XuDepartment of Urology, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Linhui WangDepartment of Urology, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Yan WangDepartment of Urology, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Wenhui ZhangDepartment of Urology, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Xiaolei ShiDepartment of Urology, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Second Military Medical University · CNChanghai Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Open radical nephrectomy (ORN) is a practical procedure for treating patients with large renal carcinomas >10 cm in size, and few studies have focused on feasibility and safety of laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (LRN). The current study was to assess the safety and effectiveness of LRN and ORN in large renal carcinoma patients by propensity matched pair analysis. Methods: In this cohort study, a retrospective review of radical nephrectomy data from October 2010 to October 2018 at Changhai Hospital was conducted. Patients with renal carcinomas >10 cm in size by pre-operative images were included. Patients' demographics including age, gender, body mass index (BMI), tumor size, operation time, hospitalization days, etc. were collected. Renal tumor patients undergoing LRN or ORN were match-paired by gender, BMI, age, and tumor size. Peri-operative outcomes including estimated blood loss and complications were compared. The follow-up contents included survival time, disease progression, and cause of death, and cancer-specific and progression-free survival were estimated via Kaplan-Meier curve analysis. Results: Among 92 patients with clinical T2b renal masses, 37 pairs were matched. The average tumor sizes of the LRN and ORN groups were 11.37±0.30 and 11.67±0.33 cm (P=0.375), respectively. The average operating time for LRN was slightly longer (204.32±11.17 Conclusions: Considering the conversion rates and overall complication rates, it seems that LRN for large renal carcinomas demonstrated equivalent peri-operative safety and effectiveness compared with ORN, with no adverse effects on midterm oncological outcomes.

Indexed as

laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (LRN)open radical nephrectomy (ORN)Renal cell carcinoma (RCC)

Identifiers

PMID36092844
PMCPMC9459555
OpenAlexW4292998206

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.