Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37325290›Full record

ReviewTherapeutic advances in urology

Single-port robotic partial nephrectomy: impact on perioperative outcomes and hospital stay.

Umberto Carbonara, Daniele Amparore, Leonardo D Borregales, Anna Caliò, Chiara Ciccarese, Pietro Diana, Selcuk Erdem, Laura Marandino, Michele Marchioni, Constantijn H J Muselaers and 8 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Therapeutic advances in urology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. The evolving management of small renal masses.Nature reviews. Urology · 2024
    Review
  15. Article
  16. 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

18 authors.

Umberto CarbonaraAndrology and Kidney Transplantation Unit, Department of Emergency and Organ Transplantation-Urology, University of Bari Aldo Moro, Piazza Giulio Cesare, 11, 70125, Bari, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3179-630X
Daniele AmparoreRenal Cancer Working Group, Young Academic Urologists (YAU), European Association of Urology (EAU), Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Leonardo D BorregalesRenal Cancer Working Group, Young Academic Urologists (YAU), European Association of Urology (EAU), Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Anna CaliòDepartment of Pathology and Diagnostic, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Chiara CiccareseRenal Cancer Working Group, Young Academic Urologists (YAU), European Association of Urology (EAU), Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Pietro DianaRenal Cancer Working Group, Young Academic Urologists (YAU), European Association of Urology (EAU), Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Selcuk ErdemRenal Cancer Working Group, Young Academic Urologists (YAU), European Association of Urology (EAU), Arnhem, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3514-1394
Laura MarandinoRenal Cancer Working Group, Young Academic Urologists (YAU), European Association of Urology (EAU), Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Michele MarchioniRenal Cancer Working Group, Young Academic Urologists (YAU), European Association of Urology (EAU), Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Constantijn H J MuselaersRenal Cancer Working Group, Young Academic Urologists (YAU), European Association of Urology (EAU), Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Carlotta PalumboRenal Cancer Working Group, Young Academic Urologists (YAU), European Association of Urology (EAU), Arnhem, The Netherlands; Urology Unit, Ospedale Maggiore della Carità, Novara, Italy.
Nicola PavanRenal Cancer Working Group, Young Academic Urologists (YAU), European Association of Urology (EAU), Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Angela PecoraroRenal Cancer Working Group, Young Academic Urologists (YAU), European Association of Urology (EAU), Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Eduard RousselRenal Cancer Working Group, Young Academic Urologists (YAU), European Association of Urology (EAU), Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Hannah WarrenRenal Cancer Working Group, Young Academic Urologists (YAU), European Association of Urology (EAU), Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Zhen-Jie WuRenal Cancer Working Group, Young Academic Urologists (YAU), European Association of Urology (EAU), Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Riccardo CampiRenal Cancer Working Group, Young Academic Urologists (YAU), European Association of Urology (EAU), Arnhem, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5237-0888
Riccardo BertoloRenal Cancer Working Group, Young Academic Urologists (YAU), European Association of Urology (EAU), Arnhem, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Single-port (SP) robotic surgery is a novel technology and is at the beginning of its adoption curve in urology. The goal of this narrative review is to provide an overview of SP-robotic partial nephrectomy (PN) 4 years after the introduction of the da Vinci SP dedicated platform, focusing on perioperative outcomes, length of stay, and surgical technique. A nonsystematic review of the literature was conducted. The research included the most updated articles that referred to SP robotic PN. Since its commercial release in 2018, several institutions have reproduced robotic PN by using the SP platform, both

Indexed as

nephrectomynephrooureterectomypartial nephrectomypyeloplastyRAPNrenal surgeryroboticsingle-portSP

Identifiers

PMID37325290
PMCPMC10265377

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.