ArticleCancer medicine2025
A Predictive Model for Surgical Approach Selection in Robotic Partial Nephrectomy and Its Perioperative Outcomes Based on Single-Center Retrospective Data.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2025. 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.
- [Risk factors for perioperative acute kidney injury following partial nephrectomy in patients with stage 3 chronic kidney disease].Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the perioperative and postoperative outcomes of transperitoneal and retroperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) and develop a prediction model for reference to select the approach. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed our single-institutional RPN database. The patients were divided into training and validation sets. In training set, transperitoneal and retroperitoneal cases were matched using propensity score matching to balance confounding factors. The intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of both approaches were compared. A prediction model was constructed to predict the probability of the retroperitoneal approach. The model was then externally validated using the data from the validation set.
resultsA total of 318 patients were included in the training set, and after propensity score matching, 200 cases were left. Additionally, 92 patients were included in the validation set. The estimated blood loss (p = 0.021) and the hemoglobin change (p = 0.016) were greater in the transperitoneal group. There was no significant difference in operative time (p = 0.539), warm ischemia time (p = 0.678), hospitalization time (p = 0.673), extubation time (p = 0.621), creatinine change (p = 0.623), negative margin (p = 1), local recurrence (p = 1), postoperative complication (p = 0.229), long-term creatinine (p = 0.158), and overall survival (p = 0.671) between the two groups. Tumor diameter, anteroposterior location, longitudinal location, and accessory renal artery were employed as variables to construct the prediction model, resulting in area under the curve values of 0.84 and 0.77, respectively, during internal and external validation.
conclusionsRetroperitoneal and transperitoneal approaches of RPN showed no difference in perioperative outcomes except estimated blood loss and hemoglobin change. The retroperitoneal approach is recommended for smaller tumors located in the upper pole or posterior and the presence of an accessory renal artery. Our model is available to predict the probability of the retroperitoneal approach.
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.