SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2024
Perioperative, functional and oncologic outcomes of percutaneous ablation versus minimally invasive partial nephrectomy for clinical T1 renal tumors: outcomes from a pooled analysis.
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. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for technically challenging renal tumors (completely endophytic and hilar): a systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative, oncological, and functional outcomes.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Minimally Invasive Ablation Strategies for Renal Cell Carcinoma Patients Ineligible for Surgery.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Comparative efficacy of kidney-sparing surgery versus radical nephroureterectomy for high-risk middle-lower ureteral urothelial carcinoma: a retrospective analysis.International urology and nephrology · 2026Article
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
The objective of this study was to perform a comprehensive pooled analysis aimed at comparing the efficacy and safety of percutaneous ablation (PCA) versus minimally invasive partial nephrectomy (MIPN), including robotic and laparoscopic approaches, in patients diagnosed with cT1 renal tumors. We conducted a comprehensive search across four major electronic databases: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library, targeting studies published in English up to April 2024. The primary outcomes evaluated in this analysis included perioperative outcomes, functional outcomes, and oncological outcomes. A total of 2449 patients across 17 studies were included in the analysis. PCA demonstrated superior outcomes compared to MIPN in terms of shorter hospital stays (WMD: - 2.13 days; 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: - 3.29, - 0.97; p = 0.0003), reduced operative times (WMD: - 109.99 min; 95% CI: - 141.40, - 78.59; p < 0.00001), and lower overall complication rates (OR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.40, 0.74; p = 0.0001). However, PCA was associated with a higher rate of local recurrence when compared to MIPN (OR: 3.81; 95% CI: 2.45, 5.92; p < 0.00001). Additionally, no significant differences were observed in major complications, estimated glomerular filtration rate decline, creatinine variation, overall survival, recurrence-free survival, and disease-free survival between the two treatment modalities. PCA presents a notable disadvantage regarding local recurrence rates in comparison to MIPN. However, PCA offers several advantages over MIPN, including shorter durations of hospital stay, reduced operative times, and lower complication rates, while achieving similar outcomes in other oncologic metrics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39105944What 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.