ArticleInternational journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association2024
Not-so-simple nephrectomy: Comparative analysis of radical and simple nephrectomy in a high-volume tertiary referral center.
Article in International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Laparoscopic vs. Open nephrectomy for inflammatory renal conditions: a meta-analysis emphasizing safety.BMC urology · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesSimple nephrectomies can be challenging with significant morbidity. To prove the hypothesis of "not-so-simple" nephrectomy, we compared demographics, perioperative outcomes, and complications between simple and radical nephrectomy in a tertiary referral center.
methodsWe analyzed 473 consecutive radical nephrectomies (January 2018-October 2020) and simple nephrectomies (January 2016-October 2020). Univariate and multivariate analysis of perioperative outcomes utilized the Mann-Whitney U test, Chi-squared test, Mantel-Haenszel test of trend, and multiple linear regression. Radical nephrectomies were classified in cT1, cT2a, and cT2b-T3 subgroups and compared to simple nephrectomies. Minimally invasive and open techniques were compared between the two groups. Infected versus non-infected simple nephrectomies were compared.
resultsA total of 344 radical and 129 simple nephrectomies were included. Simple nephrectomy was an independent predictor of increased operative time (p = 0.001), length of stay (p = 0.049), and postoperative complications (p < 0.001). Simple nephrectomies had higher operative time (p < 0.001), length of stay (p = 0.014), and postoperative morbidity (p < 0.001) than cT1 radical nephrectomies and significantly more Clavien 1-2 complications than cT2a radical nephrectomies (p = 0.001). The trend was similar in minimally invasive operations. However, conversion to open rates was not significantly different. Infected simple nephrectomies had increased operative time (p < 0.001), length of stay (p = 0.005), blood loss (p = 0.016), and intensive care stay (p = 0.019).
conclusionsPatients undergoing simple nephrectomy experienced increased operative time and morbidity. Simple nephrectomy carries higher morbidity than radical nephrectomy in tumors ≤10 cm. Robotic simple nephrectomies may reduce open conversion rates. Postoperative intensive care and enhanced recovery may be essential in simple nephrectomy planning with infected pathology.
Indexed as
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.