Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36675653›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2023

Comparison of Transperitoneal and Retroperitoneal Robotic Partial Nephrectomy for Patients with Completely Lower Pole Renal Tumors.

Wenlei Zhao, Yancai Ding, Dong Chen, Yundong Xuan, Zhiqiang Chen, Xupeng Zhao, Bin Jiang, Baojun Wang, Hongzhao Li, Chengliang Yin and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

14 authors.

Wenlei ZhaoDepartment of Urology, The Third Medical Centre, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100853, China.
Yancai DingDepartment of Urology, Chinese PLA NO. 942 Hospital, Yinchuan 750003, China.
Dong ChenDepartment of Urology, The Third Medical Centre, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100853, China.
Yundong XuanDepartment of Urology, The Third Medical Centre, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100853, China.
Zhiqiang ChenDepartment of Urology, The Third Medical Centre, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100853, China.
Xupeng ZhaoDepartment of Urology, The Third Medical Centre, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100853, China.ORCID 0000-0002-3770-1551
Bin JiangMedical School, Nankai University, Tianjin 300071, China.
Baojun WangDepartment of Urology, The Third Medical Centre, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100853, China.
Hongzhao LiDepartment of Urology, The Third Medical Centre, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100853, China.
Chengliang YinNational Engineering Laboratory for Medical Big Data Application Technology, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100853, China.
Xin MaDepartment of Urology, The Third Medical Centre, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100853, China.ORCID 0000-0002-7316-1468
Gang GuoDepartment of Urology, The Third Medical Centre, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100853, China.
Liangyou GuDepartment of Urology, The Third Medical Centre, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100853, China.
Xu ZhangDepartment of Urology, The Third Medical Centre, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100853, China.ORCID 0000-0002-6908-6768

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 81972389
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

(1) Background: For completely lower pole renal tumors, we compared the perioperative outcomes of robotic partial nephrectomy via transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches. (2) Methods: Complete lower pole renal tumors were defined as tumors that received 1 point for the “L” element of the R.E.N.A.L. and located at the lower pole of kidney. After confirming consistency in baseline characteristics, oncological and functional benefits were compared. Pentafecta achievement was used to represent the perioperative optimal outcome, followed by multivariate analysis of factors associated with the lack of pentafecta achievement. (3) Results: Among 151 patients identified, 116 (77%) underwent robotic partial nephrectomy via a transperitoneal approach and 35 (23%) via a retroperitoneal approach. Patients undergoing transperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy experienced more blood loss than those undergoing retroperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy (50 mL vs. 40 mL, p = 0.015). No significant differences were identified for operative time (120 min vs. 120 min), ischemia time (19 min vs. 20 min), positive surgical margins (0.0% vs. 2.86%), postoperative rate of complication (12.07% vs. 5.71%). No significant differences were identified in pathologic variables, eGFR decline in postoperative 12-month (3.9% vs. 5.4%) functional follow-up. Multivariate cox analysis showed that tumor size (OR: 0.523; 95% CI: 0.371−0.736; p < 0.001) alone was independently correlated to the achievement of pentafecta. (4) Conclusions: For completely lower pole renal tumors, transperitoneal and retroperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy provide similar outcomes. These two surgical approaches remain feasible options for these cases.

Indexed as

kidney neoplasmslower poleoutcomepartial nephrectomyrobotics

Identifiers

PMID36675653
PMCPMC9860733

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.