Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39133792›Full record

Trial reportInternational braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology

Robot-assisted radical nephroureterectomy using the KangDuo Surgical Robot-01 System versus the da Vinci System: a multicenter prospective randomized controlled trial.

Zhongyuan Zhang, Zhenyu Li, Weifeng Xu, Xuan Wang, Shengcai Zhu, Jie Dong, Xiaojun Tian, Wei Zuo, Qi Tang, Zhihua Li and 11 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled TrialComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Feasibility and Initial Outcomes of Telesurgery in Urology: a Systematic Review of the Literature.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology
    Pooled it
  3. Systematic Review and Clinical Outcomes of new Robotic Systems in Urology.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Robot-Assisted Boari-flap after Orthotopic Neobladder Using the KangDuo Surgical Robot-01 System.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology
    Article
  11. Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy is the Hot Topic in this Number of International Brazilian Journal of Urology.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology
    Article
  12. Robot-assisted Repair of Rectovesical Fistula after Radical Prostatectomy using the Hugo™ RAS System.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology
    Article
  13. Tubeless Retroperitoneal Robot-assisted Partial Nephrectomy: An Innovative Approach to Treat Early Renal Tumor.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Telesurgery and the Future of Urologic Surgery.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology
    Article
  16. First Brazilian Series of Urologic Surgeries Using Versius Robotic Multiport Platform.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology
    Article
  17. Telesurgery and the International Brazilian Journal of Urology in 2024.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology
    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

21 authors.

Zhongyuan ZhangDepartment of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Institute of Urology, Peking University, National Urological Cancer Center, Beijing, China.
Zhenyu LiDepartment of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Institute of Urology, Peking University, National Urological Cancer Center, Beijing, China.
Weifeng XuDepartment of Urology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.
Xuan WangDepartment of Urology, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Institute of Geriatric Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.
Shengcai ZhuDepartment of Urology, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Institute of Geriatric Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.
Jie DongDepartment of Urology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.
Xiaojun TianDepartment of Urology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Wei ZuoDepartment of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Institute of Urology, Peking University, National Urological Cancer Center, Beijing, China.
Qi TangDepartment of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Institute of Urology, Peking University, National Urological Cancer Center, Beijing, China.
Zhihua LiDepartment of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Institute of Urology, Peking University, National Urological Cancer Center, Beijing, China.
Kunlin YangDepartment of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Institute of Urology, Peking University, National Urological Cancer Center, Beijing, China.
Xiaoqiang XueDepartment of Urology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.
Yingjie LiDepartment of Urology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.
Hongxian ZhangDepartment of Urology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Qiming ZhangDepartment of Urology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Silu ChenDepartment of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Institute of Urology, Peking University, National Urological Cancer Center, Beijing, China.
Zhaoheng JinDepartment of Urology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.
Xuesong LiDepartment of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Institute of Urology, Peking University, National Urological Cancer Center, Beijing, China.
Zhigang JiDepartment of Urology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.
Lulin MaDepartment of Urology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Ming LiuDepartment of Urology, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Institute of Geriatric Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionWe aim to compare the safety and effectiveness of the KangDuo (KD)-Surgical Robot-01 (KD-SR-01) system and the da Vinci (DV) system for robot-assisted radical nephroureterectomy (RARNU). MATERIALS AND

methodsThis multicenter prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted between March 2022 and September 2023. Group 1 included 29 patients undergoing KD-RARNU. Group 2 included 29 patients undergoing DV-RARNU. Patient demographic and clinical characteristics, perioperative data, and follow-up outcomes were collected prospectively and compared between the two groups.

resultsThere were no significant differences in patient baseline demographic and preoperative characteristics between the two groups. The success rates in both groups were 100% without conversion to open or laparoscopic surgery or positive surgical margins. No significant difference was observed in docking time [242 (120-951) s vs 253 (62-498) s, P = 0.780], console time [137 (55-290) min vs 105 (62-220) min, P = 0.114], operative time [207 (121-460) min vs 185 (96-305) min, P = 0.091], EBL [50 (10-600) mL vs 50 (10-700) mL, P = 0.507], National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index scores, and postoperative serum creatinine levels between the two groups. None of the patients showed evidence of distant metastasis, local recurrence, or equipment-related adverse events during the four-week follow-up. One (3.4%) patient in Group 2 experienced postoperative enterovaginal and enterovesical fistulas (Clavien-Dindo grade III).

conclusionsThe KD-SR-01 system is safe and effective for RARNU compared to the DV Si or Xi system. Further randomized controlled studies with larger sample sizes and longer durations are required.

Indexed as

NephroureterectomyOperative TimeRobotic Surgical ProceduresAgedFemaleHumansKidney NeoplasmsLaparoscopyLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsProspective StudiesReproducibility of ResultsTreatment OutcomeMulticenter Studies as TopicNephroureterectomyRobotic Surgical Procedures

Identifiers

PMID39133792
PMCPMC11554279

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.