Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37182118›Full record

ReviewEuropean urology open science2023

Resection Techniques During Robotic Partial Nephrectomy: A Systematic Review.

Riccardo Bertolo, Alessio Pecoraro, Umberto Carbonara, Daniele Amparore, Pietro Diana, Stijn Muselaers, Michele Marchioni, Maria Carmen Mir, Alessandro Antonelli, Ketan Badani and 9 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in European urology open science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
14.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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 at 17 institutions in 6 countries.

Riccardo BertoloDepartment of Urology, San Carlo Di Nancy Hospital, Rome, Italy.
Alessio PecoraroUnit of Urological Robotic Surgery and Renal Transplantation, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Umberto CarbonaraDepartment of Emergency and Organ Transplantation-Urology, Unit of Andrology and Kidney Transplantation, University of Bari, Bari, Italy.
Daniele AmparoreDivision of Urology, Department of Oncology, School of Medicine, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, University of Turin, Orbassano, Turin, Italy.
Pietro DianaDepartment of Urology, Humanitas Clinical and Research Institute IRCCS, Rozzano, Italy.
Stijn MuselaersDepartment of Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Michele MarchioniDepartment of Medical, Oral and Biotechnological Sciences, Laboratory of Biostatistics, G. D'Annunzio Chieti-Pescara University, Chieti, Italy.
Maria Carmen MirServicio de Urología, Fundación Investigación Hospital IMED Valencia, Valencia, Spain.
Alessandro AntonelliDepartment of Urology, University of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata, Verona, Italy.
Ketan BadaniDepartment of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Alberto BredaDepartment of Urology, Fundació Puigvert, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Ben ChallacombeDepartment of Urology, Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Jihad KaoukGlickman Urological & Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Alexandre MottrieOrsi Academy, Melle, Belgium.
Francesco PorpigliaDivision of Urology, Department of Oncology, School of Medicine, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, University of Turin, Orbassano, Turin, Italy.
Jim PorterSwedish Urology Group, Swedish Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA.
Andrea MinerviniUnit of Urological Robotic Surgery and Renal Transplantation, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Riccardo CampiUnit of Urological Robotic Surgery and Renal Transplantation, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
European Association of Urology Young Academic Urologists Renal Cancer Working Group
University of Florence · ITOnze Lieve Vrouwziekenhuis Hospital · BEAzienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata Verona · ITCleveland Clinic · USCornell University · USGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust · GBHumanitas University · ITIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai · USOspedale San Carlo · ITOspedale San Luigi Gonzaga · ITRadboud University Medical Center · NLSwedish Medical Center · USUniversitat Autònoma de Barcelona · ESUniversity of Bari Aldo Moro · ITUniversity of Chieti-Pescara · ITUniversity of Turin · ITUniversity of Verona · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Context: The resection technique used to excise tumor during robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) is of paramount importance in achieving optimal clinical outcomes. Objective: To provide an overview of the different resection techniques used during RPN, and a pooled analysis of comparative studies. Evidence acquisition: The systematic review was conducted according to established principles (PROSPERO: CRD42022371640) on November 7, 2022. A population (P: adult patients undergoing RPN), intervention (I: enucleation), comparator (C: enucleoresection or wedge resection), outcome (O: outcome measurements of interest), and study design (S) framework was prespecified to assess study eligibility. Studies reporting a detailed description of resection techniques and/or evaluating the impact of resection technique on outcomes of surgery were included. Evidence synthesis: Resection techniques used during RPN can be broadly classified as resection (non-anatomic) or enucleation (anatomic). A standardized definition for these is lacking. Out of 20 studies retrieved, nine compared "standard" resection versus enucleation. A pooled analysis did not reveal significant differences in terms of operative time, ischemia time, blood loss, transfusions, or positive margins. Significant differences favoring enucleation were found for clamping management (odds ratio [OR] for renal artery clamping 3.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13-10.88; Conclusions: There is heterogeneity in the reporting of resection techniques used during RPN. The urological community must improve the quality of reporting and research produced accordingly. Positive margins are not specifically related to the resection technique. Focusing on studies comparing standard resection versus enucleation, advantages with tumor enucleation in terms of avoidance of artery clamping, overall/major complications, length of stay, and renal function were found. These data should be considered when planning the RPN resection strategy. Patient summary: We reviewed studies on robotic surgery for partial kidney removal using different techniques to cut away the kidney tumor. We found that a technique called "enucleation" was associated with similar cancer control outcomes in comparison to the standard technique and had fewer complications, better kidney function after surgery, and a shorter hospital stay.

Indexed as

EnucleationEnucleoresectionOutcomesPartial NephrectomyResectionRobotSurgeryTechnique

Identifiers

PMID37182118
PMCPMC10172691
OpenAlexW4367399897

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.