Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39878809›Full record

SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2025

Transperitoneal vs retroperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy: a meta-analysis and systematic review of propensity-matched studies.

Ruo-Zeng Rong, Pan Zhang, Mei Zhao, Cui-E He

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-AnalysisComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of robotic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

4 authors.

Ruo-Zeng RongDepartment of Urology, Zibo Central Hospital, Zibo, 255036, Shandong Province, China.
Pan ZhangDepartment of Neurology, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, Sichuan, China.
Mei ZhaoDepartment of Dermatology, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, Sichuan, China.
Cui-E HeDepartment of Clinical Laboratory, Zibo Central Hospital, Zibo, 255036, Shandong Province, China. hecuie1118@126.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The main aim of this meta-analysis is to assess and compare the impact of two different surgical approaches, transperitoneal and retroperitoneal, on perioperative outcomes in robotic partial nephrectomy. A systematic search of MEDLINE, PubMed, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Database was conducted to identify relevant studies published between January 2000 and January 2025. Included were nine non-randomized controlled trials with a total of 2420 patients with matching propensity scores. Among these patients, 1321 had robotic TPPN and 1099 had robotic RPPN, the abbreviation for robotic partial nephrectomy. Shorter operating times, shorter hospital stays, less estimated intraoperative blood loss, and fewer total postoperative problems were related to RPPN compared to TPPN. There were no notable disparities between the two groups when comparing the duration of renal ischemia, the fall in postoperative glomerular filtration rate (GFR), the occurrence of serious postoperative sequelae, or the necessity for blood transfusions. Compared to TPPN, RPPN demonstrates certain advantages in perioperative metrics such as surgical time, hospital stay, and overall complication rates. However, further high-quality studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Indexed as

NephrectomyRobotic Surgical ProceduresBlood Loss, SurgicalHumansLength of StayOperative TimePeritoneumPostoperative ComplicationsPropensity ScoreRetroperitoneal SpaceTreatment OutcomeMeta-analysisPartial nephrectomyRetroperitonealRoboticTransperitoneal

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.