SynthesisWorld journal of urology2024
Transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in World journal of urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Transperitoneal vs retroperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy: a meta-analysis and systematic review of propensity-matched studies.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Randomised controlled feasibility trial of retroperitoneal vs transperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: the ROPARN study.BJU international · 2025Trial
- Modified internal traction technique for improved exposure in retroperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for dorsal hilar tumors: a preliminary single-center experience.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Retroperitoneal Renal Surgery with the Hugo™ RAS System: Feasibility, Setting and Perioperative Outcomes of the First Dedicated Series.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Surgical Determinants of Outcomes in Partial Nephrectomy: a Contemporary Review.Current urology reports · 2026Review
- Novel prone retroperitoneal robotic-assisted approach for bilateral partial nephrectomy: a case report.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Article
- Prone retroperitoneal versus lateral retroperitoneal robotic assisted partial nephrectomy: a propensity score-matched comparison.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Prone retroperitoneal robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Feasibility of Laparoscopic Nephrectomy in Children With Hydronephrotic Kidneys: A Prospective Study.Cureus · 2025Article
- Feasibility and perioperative outcomes of re-operative retroperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy.Urologic oncology · 2025Article
- A comparative analysis of pre-operative factors, intra-operative events and post-operative outcomes assessing transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches for robotic partial nephrectomy in T1 renal cancer: a multicenter international experience.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Learning curve of robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy surgery via the transperitoneal approach: a CUSUM analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Safety and feasibility of prone retroperitoneal robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (prRAPN): a novel posterior approach and perioperative results - a prospective study.World journal of urology · 2025Article
- Robotic retroperitoneal partial nephrectomy: rediscovering a proven approach in the era of minimally invasive surgery.Journal of visualized surgery · 2025Article
- Multiport anterior retroperitoneal access for robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy: an innovative technique for renal tumour.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Predictors of delayed hospital discharge after robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: the impact of single-port robotic surgery.World journal of urology · 2024Article
- Comparison of the effects of transperitoneal and retroperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2024Article
- Reply to 'Song Y, Jiang S, Yang W, Xu T. Letter to the editor for the article "Transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis". World J Urol. 2024 Apr 2;42(1):207.'World journal of urology · 2024Article
- Comment on: "single-port vs multi-port robot-assisted renal surgery: analysis of perioperative outcomes for excision of high and low complexity renal masses".Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Article
- Letter to the editor for the article "Transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis".World journal of urology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRobot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) can be performed either by a transperitoneal (TP) or a retroperitoneal (RP) approach. However, the superiority of one approach over the other is not established. Hence, the primary aim of this review was to compare perioperative outcomes between these two surgical approaches.
methodsLiterature was systematically searched to identify studies reporting perioperative outcomes following TP RAPN and RP RAPN. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023399496). The primary outcome was comparing complication rates between the two approaches.
resultsThis review included 22 studies, 5675 patients, 2524 in the RP group, and 3151 in the TP group. The overall complications were significantly lower in the RP group [Odds ratio (OR) 0.80 (0.67, 0.95), p = 0.01]. However, the rate of major complications was similar between the two groups. The operative time was significantly shorter with the RP group [Mean Difference (MD)-16.7 (- 22.3, - 11.0), p = < 0.0001]. Estimated blood loss (EBL) and need for blood transfusion (BT) were significantly lower in the RP group. There was no difference between the two groups for conversion to radical nephrectomy [OR 0.66 (0.33, 1.33), p = 0.25] or open surgery [OR 0.68 (0.24, 1.92, p = 0.47] and positive surgical margins [OR 0.93 (0.66, 1.31, p = 0.69]. Length of stay (LOS) was shorter in the RP group [MD - 0.27 (- 0.45, - 0.08), p = < 0.00001].
conclusionsRP approach, compared to TP, has significantly lower complication rates, EBL, need for BT and LOS. However, due to the lack of randomized studies on the topic, further data is required.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38358565What 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.