Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36894912›Full record

SynthesisWorld journal of surgical oncology2023

Perioperative and oncologic outcomes of transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for large-volume renal carcinoma (> 7 cm): a systematic review and pooled analysis of comparative outcomes.

Li Wang, Kun-Peng Li, Ying Liu, Shan Yin, Ping-Yu Zhu

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in World journal of surgical oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Li Wang *Department of Urology, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, 637000, China.
Kun-Peng Li *Department of Urology, Affiliated Hospital of Lanzhou University Second Hospital, Lanzhou, 730030, China.
Ying Liu *Department of Urology, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, 637000, China.
Shan Yin *Department of Urology, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, 637000, China.
Ping-Yu ZhuDepartment of Urology, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, 637000, China. zhupingyu@nsmc.edu.cn.
Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College · CNLanzhou University · CNNorth Sichuan Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecently, there has been a significant amount of debate concerning the question of whether laparoscopic surgery should be performed transperitoneally or retroperitoneally for treating large renal tumors.

aimThe purpose of this research is to conduct a comprehensive review and meta-analysis of the previous research on the safety and efficacy of transperitoneal laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (TLRN) and retroperitoneal laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (RLRN) in the treatment of large-volume renal malignancies.

methodsAn extensive search of the scientific literature was carried out utilizing PubMed, Scopus, Embase, SinoMed, and Google Scholar in order to locate randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective and retrospective studies that compared the effectiveness of RLRN versus TLRN in the treatment of for large renal malignancies. For the purpose of comparing the oncologic and perioperative outcomes of the two techniques, data were taken from the research studies that were included and pooled together.

resultsA total of 14 studies (five RCTs and nine retrospective studies) were incorporated into this meta-analysis. The overall RLRN had an association with significantly shorter operating time (OT) (MD [mean difference]: - 26.57; 95% CI [confidence interval]: - 33.39 to - 19.75; p < 0.00001); less estimated blood loss (EBL) (MD: - 20.55; CI: - 32.86 to - 8.23; p = 0.001); faster postoperative intestinal exhaust (MD: - 0.65; CI: - 0.95 to - 0.36; p < 0.00001). The terms of length of stay (LOS) (p = 0.26), blood transfusion (p = 0.26), conversion rate (p = 0.26), intraoperative complications (p = 0.5), postoperative complications (p = 0.18), local recurrence rate (p = 0.56), positive surgical margin (PSM) (p = 0.45), and distant recurrence rate (p = 0.7) did not show any differences.

conclusionsRLRN provides surgical and oncologic results similar to TLRN, with potential advantages regarding shorter OT, EBL, and postoperative intestinal exhaust. Due to the high heterogeneity among the studies, long-term randomized clinical trials are required to obtain more definitive results.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Renal CellKidney NeoplasmsLaparoscopyHumansNephrectomyPostoperative ComplicationsTreatment OutcomeKidney neoplasmsLaparoscopic nephrectomyMeta-analysisRetroperitonealTransperitoneal

Identifiers

PMID36894912
PMCPMC9997016
OpenAlexW4323809199

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.