ArticleCanadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada2023
The learning curve for pure retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy by using cumulative sum analysis.
Article in Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis study aimed to identify a precise learning curve for pure retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy (RDN).
methodsData from 172 consecutive kidney donors who underwent pure RDN between January 2010 and July 2019 were prospectively collected and evaluated. Cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis was used for testing the operation time. Changepoints were determined by using the r program and BINSEG method. The cohort was divided into three groups - group 1: competence, including the first 10 cases; group 2: 11-48 cases as proficiency; and group 3: the subsequent 124 cases as expert level. Continuous variables were evaluated using one-way ANOVA, and categorical data were evaluated using the Chi-squared test.
resultsRight RDN was performed in 39 (22.7%) donors. The eighth patient was converted to open surgery due to vena cava injury and excluded from the CUSUM analysis. Depending on experience in pure RDN, a significant decrease was detected in operative time (p<0.001), warm ischemia time (p=0.006), and blood loss (p<0.001). Recipient complications and graft function were found to be statistically comparable.
conclusionsIn our study, the attainment of expertise in pure RDN was observed after performing 50 cases. The transperitoneal technique, which is a feasible alternative, is far more widely used than pure RDN. We believe that understanding the learning curve associated with pure RDN could facilitate the adoption of this approach as a viable alternative to the transperitoneal approach.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.