Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38217779›Full record

ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2024

Analysis of KangDuo-SR-1500 and KangDuo-SR-2000 robotic partial nephrectomy from an operative and ergonomic perspective: a prospective controlled study in porcine models.

Liqing Xu, Xinfei Li, Shubo Fan, Zhihua Li, Wei Zuo, Silu Chen, Peng Zhang, Liang Cui, Liqun Zhou, Kunlin Yang and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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

11 authors.

Liqing Xu *Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Peking University, National Urological Cancer Center, No. 8 Xishiku Street, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100034, China.
Xinfei Li *Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Peking University, National Urological Cancer Center, No. 8 Xishiku Street, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100034, China.
Shubo FanDepartment of Urology, Institute of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Peking University, National Urological Cancer Center, No. 8 Xishiku Street, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100034, China.
Zhihua LiDepartment of Urology, Institute of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Peking University, National Urological Cancer Center, No. 8 Xishiku Street, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100034, China.
Wei ZuoDepartment of Urology, Institute of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Peking University, National Urological Cancer Center, No. 8 Xishiku Street, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100034, China.
Silu ChenDepartment of Urology, Institute of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Peking University, National Urological Cancer Center, No. 8 Xishiku Street, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100034, China.
Peng ZhangDepartment of Urology, Emergency General Hospital, Beijing, 100028, China.
Liang CuiDepartment of Urology, School of Clinical Medicine, Civil Aviation General Hospital, Peking University Aerospace, Beijing, 100080, China.
Liqun ZhouDepartment of Urology, Institute of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Peking University, National Urological Cancer Center, No. 8 Xishiku Street, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100034, China.
Kunlin YangDepartment of Urology, Institute of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Peking University, National Urological Cancer Center, No. 8 Xishiku Street, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100034, China. yangkunlin12345@163.com.
Xuesong LiDepartment of Urology, Institute of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Peking University, National Urological Cancer Center, No. 8 Xishiku Street, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100034, China. pineneedle@sina.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The objective of this study is to explore the safety and effectiveness of two new models of KangDuo surgical robots for partial nephrectomy in porcine models, and evaluate the ergonomic characteristics from both subjective and objective perspectives. Twelve porcine models were equally divided for KD-SR-1500 (three-arm) and KD-SR-2000 (four-arm). The perioperative outcomes, and physical and mental workload of the surgeon were compared. Physical workload was evaluated with surface electromyography. Mental workload was evaluated with NASA-TLX. All surgeries were performed successfully. There were no differences in perioperative variables (p > 0.05). There were no perioperative complications. The mental workload in both groups was at a low level. KD-SR-2000 showed advantages in physical workload (p < 0.01). KD-SR-1500 and KD-SR-2000 are technically feasible, valid, and safe for RAPN in porcine models. KD-SR-2000 had ergonomic advantages over KD-SR-1500.

Indexed as

Kidney NeoplasmsRoboticsRobotic Surgical ProceduresAnimalsErgonomicsNephrectomyProspective StudiesSwineTreatment OutcomeErgonomicsNovel surgical robotPartial nephrectomyPorcine modelsRobotic surgery

Identifiers

PMID38217779

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.