ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences2024
Comparison of the effects of transperitoneal and retroperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy.
Article in Pakistan journal of medical sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Single-port vs multi-port retroperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy in obese patients: a meta-analysis of perioperative and functional outcomes.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
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
Objective: To compare the effects of transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches for robotic assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) in patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study on RAPN at Affiliated Hospital of Jiangsu University. Between September 2020 and February 2024, the included patients underwent either transperitoneal approach or retroperitoneal approach. Perioperative status, stress response, quality of life, and incidence of complications were compared between the groups. Results: A total of 105 patients were included in this analysis, with 54 patients in the Retroperitoneal group, and 51 patients in the Transperitoneal group. The retroperitoneal approach was associated with significantly better perioperative indicators compared to the transperitoneal method ( Conclusions: Compared with the transperitoneal approach, the retroperitoneal method of RAPN is equally safe and is associated with improved perioperative status, lower stress response, and better quality of life for RCC patients.
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.