Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37810278›Full record

ArticleEuropean urology open science2023

Redo Partial Nephrectomy for Local Recurrence After Previous Nephron-sparing Surgery. Surgical Insights and Oncologic Results from a High-volume Robotic Center.

Fabrizio Di Maida, Antonio Andrea Grosso, Riccardo Campi, Luca Lambertini, Maria Lucia Gallo, Anna Cadenar, Vincenzo Salamone, Simone Coco, Daniele Paganelli, Agostino Tuccio and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Feasibility and Safety of Repeat Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy for Ipsilateral Local Recurrence: A Case Series.International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. 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

12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Fabrizio Di MaidaUnit of Oncologic Minimally Invasive Urology and Andrology, Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Antonio Andrea GrossoUnit of Oncologic Minimally Invasive Urology and Andrology, Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Riccardo CampiUnit of Urological Robotic Surgery and Renal Transplantation, Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Luca LambertiniUnit of Oncologic Minimally Invasive Urology and Andrology, Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Maria Lucia GalloUnit of Urological Robotic Surgery and Renal Transplantation, Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Anna CadenarUnit of Oncologic Minimally Invasive Urology and Andrology, Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Vincenzo SalamoneUnit of Oncologic Minimally Invasive Urology and Andrology, Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Simone CocoUnit of Oncologic Minimally Invasive Urology and Andrology, Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Daniele PaganelliUnit of Oncologic Minimally Invasive Urology and Andrology, Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Agostino TuccioUnit of Oncologic Minimally Invasive Urology and Andrology, Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Lorenzo MasieriUnit of Urological Robotic Surgery and Renal Transplantation, Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Andrea MinerviniUnit of Oncologic Minimally Invasive Urology and Andrology, Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
University of Florence · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The role of redo partial nephrectomy (PN) for recurrent renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is still overlooked. Objective: To report our experience of salvage PN for local recurrence after previous nephron-sparing surgery (NSS). Design setting and participants: We prospectively gathered data from patients treated with robotic redo PN for locally recurrent RCC after previous NSS from January 2017 to January 2023. The type of surgical resection technique was assigned to the pathologic specimen according to the surface-intermediate-base (SIB) score. Surgical procedure: Redo PN was performed by using the Si Da Vinci robotic platform. Measurements: Operative time, warm ischemia time, and intra- and postoperative complications were recorded. The severity of postoperative complications and tumor stage were evaluated. Results and limitations: Overall, 26 patients entered the study. The median clinical diameter was 3.5 (interquartile range [IQR] 2.2-4.9) cm and the median Preoperative Aspects and Dimensions Used for an Anatomical (PADUA) score was 8 (IQR 7-9). In 14 (53.8%) cases, recurrence was at the level of previous tumor resection bed. The median operative time was 177 (IQR 148-200) min, and hilar clamping was performed in 14 (53.8%) cases with a median warm ischemia time of 16 (14.5-22) min. Pure enucleation (SIB score 0-1), hybrid enucleation (SIB score 2), and pure enucleoresection (SIB score 3) were recorded in 13 (50%), eight (30.8%), and five (19.2%) cases, respectively. The totality of recurrent RCC far from previous tumor resection bed received a SIB score of 0-1, while in 57.1% and 35.8% of recurrent RCC on previous tumor resection a hybrid enucleation and a pure enucleoresection were performed, respectively. At a median follow-up of 37 (IQR 16-45) mo, five (19%) patients experienced disease recurrence, being local and systemic in three (11.5%) and two (7.7%) patients, respectively. Conclusions: Our study highlights the feasibility and safety of redo PN for the treatment of locally recurrent RCCs after NSS, either on previous tumor resection bed or elsewhere in the kidney. Patient summary: Robotic redo partial nephrectomy is a challenging procedure. The surgeon needs to tailor the surgical strategy and tumor resection technique case by case, given the heterogeneity of clinical scenarios and the need to achieve maximal functional preservation while ensuring oncologic efficacy.

Indexed as

Local recurrencePartial nephrectomyRedoRoboticSurface-intermediate-base score

Identifiers

PMID37810278
PMCPMC10551832
OpenAlexW4387226958

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.