SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2025
Comparing the outcomes of robotic vs. open partial nephrectomy in obese patients: a meta-analysis and systematic review.
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. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This meta-analysis examines and compares the perioperative results (such as complications, recovery, and other surgical outcomes) in obese patients who undergo either robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RPN) or open partial nephrectomy (OPN). Essentially, the study is looking at how these two types of surgeries perform in obese patients, specifically focusing on outcomes related to the surgery process itself. We conducted a comprehensive search of major databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, focusing on English studies, up to November 2024. Review articles, research protocols without published data, conference abstracts, and irrelevant studies were excluded. We performed data analysis using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method and random-effects models, followed by mean differences, inverse variance, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The results were presented as odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs, and data with p values less than 0.05 were identified. This meta-analysis included three cohort studies with a total of 604 patients. Compared to OPN, RPN was associated with significantly shorter hospital stays (WMD - 2.27, 95% CI - 3.67 to - 0.87; p = 0.002), lower overall complication rates (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.34-0.73; p = 0.0004), and reduced estimated blood loss (WMD - 125.12, 95% CI - 198.02 to - 52.22; p = 0.0008). No significant differences were found between the two groups in transfusion rates, major complications, renal ischemia times, or operative times. RPN offers a safe and feasible option for obese patients compared to OPN, with advantages such as shorter hospital stays, reduced blood loss, and fewer overall complications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39976852What 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.