Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39840817›Full record

Trial reportBJU international2025

Randomised controlled feasibility trial of retroperitoneal vs transperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: the ROPARN study.

Sebastian Kälble, Simon U Engelmann, Hannah Schrutz, Florian Zeman, Emily Rinderknecht, Maximilian Haas, Christoph Pickl, Christopher Goßler, Yushan Yang, Stefan Denzinger and 3 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialComparative Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in BJU international, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

13 authors.

Sebastian KälbleDepartment of Urology, St. Josef Medical Center, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
Simon U EngelmannDepartment of Urology, St. Josef Medical Center, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
Hannah SchrutzDepartment of Urology, St. Josef Medical Center, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
Florian ZemanCenter for Clinical Studies, University Hospital Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
Emily RinderknechtDepartment of Urology, St. Josef Medical Center, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
Maximilian HaasDepartment of Urology, St. Josef Medical Center, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
Christoph PicklDepartment of Urology, St. Josef Medical Center, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
Christopher GoßlerDepartment of Urology, St. Josef Medical Center, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
Yushan YangDepartment of Urology, St. Josef Medical Center, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
Stefan DenzingerDepartment of Urology, St. Josef Medical Center, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
Maximilian BurgerDepartment of Urology, St. Josef Medical Center, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
Johannes BründlDepartment of Urology, St. Josef Medical Center, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
Roman MayrDepartment of Urology, St. Josef Medical Center, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1796-3260

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess the feasibility of trial recruitment and confirm that retroperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy (RRPN) has the same oncological efficacy as transperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy (TRPN), with time advantages and less peri-operative morbidity, in a randomised controlled trial (RCT). PATIENTS AND

methodsThe study was designed as a single-centre, open-label, feasibility RCT. Patients with suspected localised renal cell carcinoma referred for robotic partial nephrectomy were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive either TRPN or RRPN. The primary outcomes were trial feasibility, postoperative mobility and pain perception. Secondary outcomes were intra-operative times, assessment of complications, and comparison of positive surgical margin (PSM) rates. The data on all randomised patients who underwent surgery were analysed descriptively.

resultsSixty-one patients underwent TRPN or RRPN (31 vs 30). Postoperative mobility within 24 h after surgery (RRPN: 77 vs TRPN: 71%; P = 0.613), median postoperative pain, assessed using a numeric rating scale (RRPN: 1.5 vs TRPN: 1.8; P = 0.509), and full bowel canalisation within 3 days (RRPN: 100% vs TRPN: 90%; P = 0.315) were more favourable in the RRPN group, but the difference was not statistically significant. In comparison to TRPN, RRPN was associated with shorter operating time (81 vs 105 min; P = 0.005), shorter time on the console (49 vs 73 min; P < 0.001) and shorter time from console to renal artery preparation (7.5 vs 18 min; P < 0.001). TRPN required a shorter time from skin incision to console (16 vs 12 min; P = 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in tumour complexity, ischaemia time, PSM rate, blood loss or complications between the two groups.

conclusionWe present the first data from an RCT comparing RRPN with TRPN. RRPN showed significant time benefits while being a safe alternative to TRPN, with a similar PSM rate. There was less postoperative morbidity in the RRPN group, although this was not statistically significant. These results underline that dorsolateral renal tumours should be preferably resected by RRPN. Further multicentre RCTs are necessary to confirm these results.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Renal CellKidney NeoplasmsNephrectomyRobotic Surgical ProceduresAdultAgedFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOperative TimePostoperative PainRetroperitoneal SpaceTreatment Outcomekidney surgerynephron‐sparing surgeryrandomised controlled studyrenal neoplasmretroperitonealretroperitoneoscopic surgerytransperitonealtransperitoneoscopic surgery

Identifiers

PMID39840817
PMCPMC12053051

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.