ArticleBMC urology2024
Comparing open and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy - a single institution report.
Article in BMC urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOpen partial nephrectomy (OPN) has previously been considered the gold standard procedure for treatment of T1 localized renal tumors. After introduction of robot assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) as an alternative method to OPN, OPN was gradually abandoned at our department. The aim of the study was to retrospectively compare the results of patients treated with either OPN or RAPN for suspected renal carcinoma.
methodsPatients who underwent either open or robotic assisted partial nephrectomy between January 1st 2010 and December 31st 2020 were retrospectively included in the study. Each tumor subjected to surgery was scored preoperatively by the RENAL nephrometry score. Complications within 30 days were assessed according to the Clavien-Dindo classification system.
resultsA total of 197 patients who underwent partial nephrectomy were identified; 75 were subjected to OPN and 122 were treated with RAPN. There were no significant differences between the groups with respect to age (OPN: 63 years ± 11, RAPN: 62 years ± 10), gender (OPN: 71/29%, RAPN: 67/33%), body mass index (OPN: 28 ± 5, RAPN: 28 ± 5), ASA score (OPN: 2.4 ± 0.6, RAPN: 2.2 ± 0.5), or nephrometry score (OPN: 6.6 ± 1.7, RAPN: 6.9 ± 1.7, p = 0.2). The operative time was significantly shorter in the OPN group (81 min) compared to the RAPN group (144.5 min, p < 0.001). Mean perioperative blood loss was 227 ± 162 ml in the OPN group compared to 189 ± 152 ml in the RAPN group (p = 0.1). Mean length of stay was shorter in the RAPN group (3 days) compared to the OPN group (6, days, p < 0.001). Positive surgical margin rate was significantly higher in the OPN group (21.6%) compared to the RAPN group (4.2%, p < 0.001). There were no differences in the number of Clavien-Dindo graded complications between the groups (p = 0.6).
conclusionsThe introduction of RAPN at our department resulted in shorter length of stay and fewer positive surgical margins, without increasing complications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.