ArticleTranslational andrology and urology2025
Accuracy of R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score in predicting perioperative outcomes of minimally invasive partial nephrectomy: impact of different surgical techniques.
Article in Translational andrology and urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Optimizing outcomes of partial nephrectomy in patients with tumors in solitary kidneys: a non-systematic review.Journal of medicine and life · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Previous studies have demonstrated the ability of the R.E.N.A.L. (Radius, Exophytic/Endophytic, Nearness, Anterior/Posterior, Location) nephrometry score to predict perioperative outcomes, but those studies have not considered the impact of different surgical approaches on predictive accuracy. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate whether different minimally invasive surgical techniques affect the accuracy of the R.E.N.A.L. score in predicting perioperative outcomes, particularly the achievement of trifecta. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of clinical data from 623 patients who underwent robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) or laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) in our clinical institution. Correlations between the R.E.N.A.L. score and operative time (OT), length of stay (LOS), estimated blood loss (EBL), change in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), postoperative complications, and time of drain removal were calculated. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors of achieving trifecta outcomes in both surgical groups. The Simplified PADUA REnal (SPARE) nephrometry system was used as a control to compare with R.E.N.A.L. score. Results: In the RAPN group, both the R.E.N.A.L. score and grade showed a strong correlation with postoperative outcomes. However, in the LPN group, R.E.N.A.L. grade was not statistically correlated with OT (P=0.07) or postoperative complications (P=0.08), and the SPARE score showed no correlation with change in eGFR (P=0.69). Additionally, SPARE grade was not correlated with change in eGFR (P=0.57) or postoperative complications (P=0.28). In both univariate and adjusted multivariable logistic regression models, the R.E.N.A.L. score was an independent predictor of achieving trifecta in the RAPN group, but it was not a predictor in the LPN group. The SPARE score exhibited similar differential predictive validity between the two surgical techniques. In the RAPN group, the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves (AUCs) for predicting trifecta achievement were 0.643 for the R.E.N.A.L. score and 0.613 for the SPARE score. Conclusions: The R.E.N.A.L. score is an effective tool for preoperatively assessing the complexity of renal masses. However, different surgical techniques can influence the predictive accuracy of the R.E.N.A.L. score, with it being more accurate in predicting trifecta achievement following RAPN compared to LPN.
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.