ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2025
Comparative evaluation of different specimen extraction techniques in laparoscopic simple nephrectomy in female patients.
Article in International urology and nephrology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare different specimen extraction techniques in laparoscopic simple nephrectomy among female patients, focusing on perioperative outcomes, complications, and postoperative recovery.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on data from 45 female patients who underwent laparoscopic nephrectomy between September 2022 and July 2024. Patients were divided into three groups: laparoscopic transperitoneal nephrectomy with transvaginal extraction (LTN-TVS), Pfannenstiel extraction (LTN-PFN), and retroperitoneoscopic nephrectomy (RPN) with flank extraction. Demographic data, operative details, extraction times, postoperative outcomes, and sexual function scores were analyzed.
resultsThe LTN-PFN group had the shortest operative (106.93 ± 20.89 min) and extraction times (18.00 ± 2.97 min) compared to LTN-TVS (127.80 ± 27.88 min, 30.13 ± 8.05 min) and RPN (130.8 ± 32.62 min, 18.93 ± 16.35 min) groups (P < 0.05). Initially longer extraction times were seen in the transvaginal group which decreased with experience. The LTN-TVS group had significantly lower pain scores at 24 and 48 h and reduced analgesic needs (P < 0.01) as compared to other groups. Scar assessment scores favored the transvaginal group. Incisional hernias occurred in 2 PFN and 1 RPN patient, but none in the TVS group. Hospital stay, pelvic floor, and sexual function scores showed no significant differences among the groups.
conclusionThe transvaginal extraction method offers a promising, minimally invasive alternative with superior postoperative outcomes and minimal complications, making it a preferred approach in female patients undergoing laparoscopic nephrectomy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39580777What 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.