Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39110358›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of clinical oncology2024

Efficacy of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy compared to conventional laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for completely endophytic renal tumor: a multicenter, prospective study.

Nobuyuki Hinata, Sae Murakami, Yuzo Nakano, Isao Hara, Tsunenori Kondo, Shuzo Hamamoto, Ryoichi Shiroki, Jun Nagayama, Mutsushi Kawakita, Masatoshi Eto and 9 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of clinical oncology, 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. Article
  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

19 authors.

Nobuyuki HinataDepartment of Urology, Graduate School of Biomedical and Health Sciences Hiroshima University, 1-2-3, Kasumi Minami-ku, Hiroshima, 734-8551, Japan. hinata@hiroshima-u.ac.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7014-6812
Sae MurakamiClinical and Translational Research Center, Kobe University Hospital, Kusunoki-cho, Chuo-ku, Kobe, Hyogo, 650-0017, Japan.
Yuzo NakanoDepartment of Urology, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Kusunoki-cho, Chuo-ku, Kobe, Hyogo, 657-0017, Japan.
Isao HaraDepartment of Urology, Wakayama Medical University, 811-1 Kimiidera, Wakayama, Wakayama, 641-8509, Japan.
Tsunenori KondoDepartment of Urology, Tokyo Women's Medical University, Adachi Medical Center, 4-33-1, Kohoku, Adachi-Ku, Tokyo, 123-8558, Japan.
Shuzo HamamotoDepartment of Nephro-urology, Nagoya City University, 1, Kawasumi Mizuho-cho, Mizuho-ku, Nagoya, Aichi, 467-8602, Japan.
Ryoichi ShirokiDepartment of Urology, Fujita-Health University School of Medicine, Toyoake City, 1-98 Dengakugakubo, Kutsukake-cho, Toyoake, Aichi, Japan.
Jun NagayamaDepartment of Urology, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, 65 Tsurumai-cho, Showa-ku, Nagoya, Aich, 466-8560, Japan.
Mutsushi KawakitaDepartment of Urology, Kobe City Medical Center General Hospital, 2-1-1 Minatojima Minamimachi, Chuo-ku, Kobe, Hyogo, 650-0047, Japan.
Masatoshi EtoDepartment of Urology, Kyushu University, 744 Motooka Nishi-ku, Fukuoka, Fukuoka, 819-0395, Japan.
Osamu UkimuraDepartment of Urology, Graduate School of Medical Science, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, 465, Kajiicho, Kawaramachi-Hirokoji, Kamigyo-ku, Kyoto, Kyoto, 602-8566, Japan.
Atsushi TakenakaDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Tottori University, 36-1, Nishicho, Yonago, Tottori, 683-8504, Japan.
Toshio TakagiDepartment of Urology, Tokyo Women's Medical University Hospital, 8-1, Kawadacho, Shinjuku-Ku, Tokyo, 162-8666, Japan.
Masaki ShimboDepartment of Urology, St. Luke's International Hospital, 9-1, Akashicho, Chuo-Ku, Tokyo, 104-0044, Japan.
Haruhito AzumaDepartment of Urology, Osaka Medical and Pharmaceutical University Hospital, 2-7 Daigakumachi, Takatsuki, Osaka, 569-8686, Japan.
Tetsuya YoshidaDepartment of Urology, Shiga University of Medical Science Hospital, Seta-Tsukinowatyo Seta, Ohtsu, Shiga, 520-2192, Japan.
Junya FurukawaDepartment of Urology, Tokushima University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, 3-18-15, Kuramoto-cho, Tokushima, Tokushima, 770-8503, Japan.
Naoki KawamoritaDepartment of Urology, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Seiryo-machi, Aoba-ku, Sendai, Miyagi, 980-8574, Japan.
Masato FujisawaDepartment of Urology, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Kusunoki-cho, Chuo-ku, Kobe, Hyogo, 657-0017, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study aimed to compare the efficacy of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for completely endophytic renal tumors with the reported outcomes of conventional laparoscopic partial nephrectomy and investigate the transition of renal function after robot-assisted partial nephrectomy.

methodsWe conducted a prospective, multicenter, single-arm, open-label trial across 17 academic centers in Japan. Patients with endophytic renal tumors classified as cT1, cN0, cM0 were included and underwent robot-assisted partial nephrectomy. We defined two primary outcomes to assess functional and oncological aspects of the procedure, which were represented by the warm ischemic time and positive surgical margin, respectively. Comparisons were made using control values previously reported in laparoscopic partial nephrectomy studies. In the historical control group, the warm ischemia time was 25.2, and the positive surgical margin was 13%.

resultsOur per-protocol analysis included 98 participants. The mean warm ischemic time was 20.3 min (99% confidence interval 18.3-22.3; p < 0.0001 vs. 25.2). None of the 98 participants had a positive surgical margin (99% confidence interval 0-5.3%; p < 0.0001 vs. 13.0%). The renal function ratio of eGFR before and after protocol treatment multiplied by splits was 0.70 (95% confidence interval: 0.66-0.75). Factors such as preoperative eGFR, resected weight, and warm ischemic time influenced the functional loss of the partially nephrectomized kidney after robot-assisted partial nephrectomy.

conclusionsRobot-assisted partial nephrectomy for completely endophytic renal tumors offers a shorter warm ischemia time and comparable positive surgical margin rate compared with conventional laparoscopic partial nephrectomy.

Indexed as

Kidney NeoplasmsLaparoscopyNephrectomyRobotic Surgical ProceduresAgedCarcinoma, Renal CellFemaleGlomerular Filtration RateHumansJapanMaleMargins of ExcisionMiddle AgedProspective StudiesTreatment OutcomeWarm IschemiaCarcinomaNephrectomyRenal cellRenal insufficiencyRobotic surgical procedures

Identifiers

PMID39110358
PMCPMC11420261

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.