Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37349748›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of surgical oncology2023

Comparison of peri- and intraoperative outcomes of open vs robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: a propensity-matched analysis.

Benedikt Hoeh, Mike Wenzel, Olivia Eckart, Felicia Fleisgarten, Cristina Cano Garcia, Jens Köllermann, Christoph Würnschimmel, Alessandro Larcher, Pierre Karakiewicz, Luis A Kluth and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

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

13 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Benedikt Hoeh *Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt Am Main, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt Am Main, Germany. benedikt.hoeh@kgu.de.
Mike Wenzel *Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt Am Main, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt Am Main, Germany.
Olivia EckartDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt Am Main, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt Am Main, Germany.
Felicia FleisgartenDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt Am Main, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt Am Main, Germany.
Cristina Cano GarciaDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt Am Main, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt Am Main, Germany.
Jens KöllermannDr. Senckenberg Institute of Pathology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt Am. Main, Germany.
Christoph WürnschimmelYoung Academics in Urology (YAU) Working Group Robotic Surgery, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Alessandro LarcherYoung Academics in Urology (YAU) Working Group Robotic Surgery, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Pierre KarakiewiczCancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montreal Health Center, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Luis A KluthDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt Am Main, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt Am Main, Germany.
Felix K H ChunDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt Am Main, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt Am Main, Germany.
Philipp MandelDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt Am Main, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt Am Main, Germany.
Andreas BeckerDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt Am Main, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt Am Main, Germany.
University Hospital Frankfurt · DEGoethe University Frankfurt · DEUniversité de Montréal · CAIstituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico · ITLuzerner Kantonsspital · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPartial nephrectomy (PN) is the gold standard surgical treatment for resectable renal cell carcinoma (RCC) tumors. However, the decision whether a robotic (RAPN) or open PN (OPN) approach is chosen is often based on the surgeon's individual experience and preference. To overcome the inherent selection bias when comparing peri- and postoperative outcomes of RAPN vs. OPN, a strict statistical methodology is needed. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe relied on an institutional tertiary-care database to identify RCC patients treated with RAPN and OPN between January 2003 and January 2021. Study endpoints were estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay (LOS), rate of intraoperative and postoperative complications, and trifecta. In the first step of analyses, descriptive statistics and multivariable regression models (MVA) were applied. In the second step of analyses, to validate initial findings, MVA were applied after 2:1 propensity-score matching (PSM).

resultsOf 615 RCC patients, 481 (78%) underwent OPN vs 134 (22%) RAPN. RAPN patients were younger and presented with a smaller tumor diameter and lower RENAL-Score sum, respectively. Median EBL was comparable, whereas LOS was shorter in RAPN vs. OPN. Both intraoperative (27 vs 6%) and Clavien-Dindo > 2 complications (11 vs 3%) were higher in OPN (both < 0.05), whereas achievement of trifecta was higher in RAPN (65 vs 54%; p = 0.028). In MVA, RAPN was a significant predictor for shorter LOS, lower rates of intraoperative and postoperative complications as well as higher trifecta rates. After 2:1 PSM with subsequent MVA, RAPN remained a statistical and clinical predictor for lower rates of intraoperative and postoperative complications and higher rates of trifecta achievement but not LOS.

conclusionsDifferences in baseline and outcome characteristics exist between RAPN vs. OPN, probably due to selection bias. However, after applying two sets of statistical analyses, RAPN seems to be associated with more favorable outcomes regarding complications and trifecta rates.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Renal CellKidney NeoplasmsRobotic Surgical ProceduresHumansNephrectomyPostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID37349748
PMCPMC10286329
OpenAlexW4381685495

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.