SynthesisInternational urology and nephrology2025
Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic adrenalectomy for large adrenal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in International urology and nephrology, 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.
- Surgical Management of Isolated Adrenal Metastases: A Retrospective Comparative Study of Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Adrenalectomy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Clinical application of robot-assisted laparoscopic resection of large pheochromocytomas via the renal surface plane using the fatty fissure as an anatomical landmark.Pakistan journal of medical 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe application of robotic adrenalectomy (RA) is increasing. However, there is still controversy over whether RA is more feasible than laparoscopic adrenalectomy (LA) for large adrenal tumors (LATs).
methodsThis meta-analysis compares the efficacy and safety of RA versus LA for LATs. A systematic literature search of PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, CNKI, WANFANG database, and other databases (up to December 2024) was performed to identify studies comparing RA and LA. Data were analyzed using the Cochrane Collaboration's Review Manager (RevMan) 5.3 software.
resultsOverall, eight studies with 601 patients were included in the analysis. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in operative time (SMD = -0.65, 95% CI -1.48 to 0.18; P = 0.12), transfusion rate (OR = 1.12, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.16; P = 0.73), hemodynamic instability (OR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.92; P = 0.46), postoperative transfer to SICU (OR = 1.26, 95% CI 0.15 to 10.51; P = 0.83). Patients from the RA group could benefit from less occurrence of conversion to open (OR = 0.18, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.59; P = 0.005), lower EBL (SMD = -1.11, 95% CI -1.71 to -0.52; P = 0.0002), quicker time to removal of drainage (SMD = -1.12, 95% CI -2.03 to -0.21; P = 0.02), and shorter length of hospital stay (SMD = -1.61, 95% CI -2.41 to -0.81; P < 0.0001, I
conclusionsCompared to LA, RA has higher advantages in certain aspects. RA is an effective and safe treatment option for LATs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40069536What 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.