SynthesisFrontiers in endocrinology2023
Robotic posterior retroperitoneal adrenalectomy versus laparoscopic posterior retroperitoneal adrenalectomy: outcomes from a pooled analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Single-Port Robotic Posterior Retroperitoneoscopic Adrenalectomy: Current Perspectives, Technical Considerations, and Future Directions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The comparative advantages of robotic posterior retroperitoneal adrenalectomy (RPRA) over laparoscopic posterior retroperitoneal adrenalectomy (LPRA) remain a topic of ongoing debate within the medical community. This systematic literature review and meta-analysis aim to assess the safety and efficacy of RPRA compared to LPRA, with the ultimate goal of determining which procedure yields superior clinical outcomes. Methods: A systematic search was conducted on databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library database to identify relevant studies, encompassing both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs, that compare the outcomes of RPRA and LPRA. The primary focus of this study was to evaluate perioperative surgical outcomes and complications. Review Manager 5.4 was used for this analysis. The study was registered with PROSPERO (ID: CRD42023453816). Results: A total of seven non-RCTs were identified and included in this study, encompassing a cohort of 675 patients. The findings indicate that RPRA exhibited superior performance compared to LPRA in terms of hospital stay (weighted mean difference [WMD] -0.78 days, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.46 to -0.10; p = 0.02). However, there were no statistically significant differences observed between the two techniques in terms of operative time, blood loss, transfusion rates, conversion rates, major complications, and overall complications. Conclusion: RPRA is associated with a significantly shorter hospital stay compared to LPRA, while demonstrating comparable operative time, blood loss, conversion rate, and complication rate. However, it is important to note that further research of a more comprehensive and rigorous nature is necessary to validate these findings. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=453816, identifier CRD42023453816.
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.