SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2024
Percutaneous ablation versus robotic‑assisted partial nephrectomy for cT1 renal cell carcinoma: an evidence-based analysis of comparative outcomes.
Synthesis in Journal of robotic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
This investigation sought to conduct a comprehensive meta-analysis to assess the comparative effectiveness and safety of percutaneous ablation (PCA) versus robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) among individuals diagnosed with cT1 renal tumors. This study rigorously followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis. A systematic search was carried out in the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases, focusing on studies published in English through February 2024. We focused on evaluating primary outcomes, specifically perioperative outcomes, functional outcomes, and oncological outcomes. In this analysis, data from 1534 patients across 13 studies were evaluated. PCA was found to have advantageous outcomes in comparison to RAPN regarding hospital stay durations, with a Weighted Mean Difference (WMD) of - 2.03 days (95% Confidence Interval [CI]: -3.78 to - 0.27; p = 0.02), operative times (WMD: -106.75 min; 95% CI: - 170.78 to - 42.72; p = 0.001), and overall complication rates (Odds Ratio [OR]: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.89; p = 0.01). Conversely, PCA showed a higher incidence of local recurrence compared to RAPN, with an OR of 3.20 (95% CI: 1.91 to 5.35; p < 0.00001). Moreover, there were no statistically significant differences between the two treatments in terms of major complications, declines in estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFR), variations in creatinine levels, overall survival rates, and recurrence-free survival. While PCA exhibits higher local recurrence rates than RAPN, it also presents significant advantages, such as shorter hospital stays, decreased operative durations, and lower complication rates. This juxtaposition underscores the urgent need for further, more rigorous research to substantiate these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39078530What 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.