ReviewJournal of kidney cancer and VHL2025
Systematic Review of Robotic Nephrectomy for Kidney Cancer.
Review in Journal of kidney cancer and VHL, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Robotic-assisted surgery for acute abdominal emergencies: a systematic review of 1142 cases.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Impact of robotic access and dedicated kidney surgery teams on nephron-sparing surgery for T1 renal masses: evidence from a Spanish multicenter registry.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma with Synchronous Bladder Metastasis: Diagnostic, Surgical, and Pathological Insights from a Rare Presentation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Robot-Assisted Versus Standard Laparoscopic Radical Nephrectomy for Renal Tumors: An Updated Systematic Review And Meta-Analysis with Meta-Regression.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robotic nephrectomy has become an increasingly preferred surgical technique for managing renal cell carcinoma (RCC). This review aims to systematically evaluate existing literature on the safety, efficacy, clinical outcomes, and associated costs of robotic nephrectomy, especially in relation to tumor dimensions and other pertinent patient factors. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we performed an extensive literature search across major databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library) from inception to October 2023. The inclusion criteria encompassed randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and case-control studies that compared robotic nephrectomy with open or laparoscopic nephrectomy. Outcomes analyzed included operative time, intraoperative blood loss, complication rates, length of hospital stay, oncological outcomes, and cost-effectiveness. The Egger test was used to assess publication bias. The review incorporated 30 studies involving 5,432 patients who underwent robotic nephrectomy. Key findings indicated that robotic nephrectomy resulted in significantly reduced intraoperative blood loss (mean difference of -85 mL; p < 0.001) and shorter hospital stays (mean difference of -1.3 days). Tumor size had a notable impact on surgical outcomes, with larger tumors (≥7 cm) being associated with prolonged operative times and slightly higher complication rates. Robotic nephrectomy was also associated with higher costs compared to conventional surgical techniques; however, reduced readmission rates offset some of these costs. Oncological outcomes for robotic nephrectomy were comparable to those of open nephrectomy. Robotic nephrectomy is a safe and effective approach for kidney cancer that demonstrates advantages in perioperative recovery and surgical precision, particularly for smaller tumors. While costs may be higher, the clinical benefits and potential long-term savings from decreased postoperative complications recommend its use. Further high-quality RCTs are essential to validate these findings.
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.