Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36203102›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2022

Perioperative outcomes following robot-assisted partial nephrectomy in elderly patients.

Gopal Sharma, Milap Shah, Puneet Ahluwalia, Prokar Dasgupta, Benjamin J Challacombe, Mahendra Bhandari, Rajesh Ahlawat, Sudhir Rawal, Nicolo M Buffi, Ananthakrishanan Sivaraman and 13 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of urology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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
  5. 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

23 authors at 18 institutions in 9 countries.

Gopal SharmaDepartment of Urologic Oncology, Max Institute of Cancer Care, Saket, New Delhi, India.
Milap ShahDepartment of Urologic Oncology, Max Institute of Cancer Care, Saket, New Delhi, India.
Puneet AhluwaliaDepartment of Urologic Oncology, Max Institute of Cancer Care, Saket, New Delhi, India.
Prokar DasguptaKing's Health Partners, King's College, London, UK.
Benjamin J ChallacombeGuys and St Thomas' Hospital, London, UK.
Mahendra BhandariVattikuti Foundation, Detroit, MI, USA.
Rajesh AhlawatThe Medicity Hospital, New Delhi, India.
Sudhir RawalRajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre, New Delhi, India.
Nicolo M BuffiHumanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, MI, Italy.
Ananthakrishanan SivaramanChennai Urology and Robotics Institute, Chennai, India.
James R PorterSwedish Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA.
Craig RogersHenry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI, USA.
Alexandre MottrieORSI Academy, Melle, Belgium.
Ronney AbazaCentral Ohio Urology Group and Mount Carmel Health System Prostate Cancer Program, Columbus, OH, USA.
Khoon Ho RhaYonsei University Health System, Seoul, South Korea.
Daniel MoonPeter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Royal Melbourne Clinical School, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Thyavihally B YuvarajaKokilaben Dhirubhai Ambani Hospital, Mumbai, India.
Dipen J ParekhUniversity of Miami Health System, Miami, FL, USA.
Umberto CapitanioUrological Research Institute (URI), IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.
Kris K MaesCenter for Robotic and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Hospital Da Luz, Luz Sáude, Portugal.
Francesco PorpigliaSan Luigi Gonzaga Hospital of Orbassano, Turin, Italy.
Levent TurkeriDepartment of Urology, Altunizade Hospital, Acıbadem M.A., Aydınlar University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Gagan GautamDepartment of Urologic Oncology, Max Institute of Cancer Care, Saket, New Delhi, India. gagangg@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3106-706X
Max Healthcare · INAcıbadem Adana Hospital · TRHenry Ford Hospital · USHospital da Luz · PTIRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital · ITIRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele · ITKing's College London · GBKokilaben Dhirubhai Ambani Hospital · INMedanta The Medicity · INMount Carmel Health · USORSI Academy · BEOspedale San Luigi Gonzaga · ITRajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre · INSt Thomas' Hospital · GBSwedish Medical Center · USThe University of Melbourne · AUUniversity of Miami Health System · USYonsei University Health System · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare perioperative outcomes following robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) in patients with age ≥ 70 years to age < 70 years.

methodsUsing Vattikuti Collective quality initiative (VCQI) database for RAPN we compared perioperative outcomes following RAPN between the two age groups. Primary outcome of the study was to compare trifecta outcomes between the two groups. Propensity matching using nearest neighbourhood method was performed with trifecta as primary outcome for sex, body mass index (BMI), solitary kidney, tumor size and Renal nephrometery score (RNS).

resultsGroup A (age ≥ 70 years) included 461 patients whereas group B included 1932 patients. Before matching the two groups were statistically different for RNS and solitary kidney rates. After propensity matching, the two groups were comparable for baselines characteristics such as BMI, tumor size, clinical symptoms, tumor side, face of tumor, solitary kidney and tumor complexity. Among the perioperative outcome parameters there was no difference between two groups for operative time, blood loss, intraoperative transfusion, intraoperative complications, need for radical nephrectomy, positive margins and trifecta rates. Warm ischemia time was significantly longer in the younger age group (18.1 min vs. 16.3 min, p = 0.003). Perioperative complications were significantly higher in the older age group (11.8% vs. 7.7%, p = 0.041). However, there was no difference between the two groups for major complications.

conclusionRAPN in well-selected elderly patients is associated with comparable trifecta outcomes with acceptable perioperative morbidity.

Indexed as

Kidney NeoplasmsRoboticsRobotic Surgical ProceduresSolitary KidneyAgedHumansNephrectomyRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeElderlyPartial nephrectomyPropensity-matchingRobotic

Identifiers

PMID36203102
OpenAlexW4303055031

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.