Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40180849›Full record

ArticleUrologic oncology2025

Urinary leak after partial nephrectomy: Insights from a cohort with hereditary, multifocal, and reoperative cases.

Ruben Blachman-Braun, Milan Patel, Lauren Loebach, Braden Millan, Jaskirat Saini, Sandeep Gurram, W Marston Linehan, Mark W Ball

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Urologic oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07232927 (Evaluation of Hemostatic Agents in Partial Nephrectomy), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT07232927 nacompletednot on this map

Evaluation of Hemostatic Agents in Partial Nephrectomy: A Prospective Randomized Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorAnkara UniversityRan2023 to 2024Enrolled150ConditionsPartial Nephrectomy, Hemostatic Agents, Localized Renal Cell CarcinomaArmsStandard Parenchymal Suturing, Suturing with FloSeal®, Suturing with Surgicel®
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Ruben Blachman-BraunUrologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.
Milan PatelUrologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.
Lauren LoebachUrologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.
Braden MillanUrologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.
Jaskirat SainiUrologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.
Sandeep GurramUrologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.
W Marston LinehanUrologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.
Mark W BallUrologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. Electronic address: mark.ball@nih.gov.

Funding

Intramural NIH HHS Z99 CA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo identify risk factors, surgical considerations, and management strategies associated with urinary leak (UL) following partial nephrectomy (PN) in a cohort that includes a significant number of patients with hereditary renal cancer syndromes, multiple tumors, and a history of prior PNs. MATERIAL AND

methodsA retrospective chart review was conducted selecting patients who underwent PN at our institution from January 2006 to December 2023 was performed. Clinical, demographic, surgical characteristics, and management strategies were recorded and analyzed.

resultsA total of 1,173 PNs were analyzed, of those 89(7.6%) had a UL. Patients had a median age at surgery of 50[38-59] years, 3[1-6] tumors removed per procedure with a total of 5,947 tumors were removed, 61.6% PN via the robotic approach, and the most common diagnosis was von Hippel-Lindau disease (47.4%). The frequency of UL was 5.1% for first-time PN, 10.4% for second, and 19.6% for third. An increased risk of UL was observed with higher EBL (OR = 1.016; P = 0.006) and decrease with robotic approach (OR = 0.376; P < 0.001). Overall, 44.9% of UL cases were successfully managed with conservative management (postop drain and Foley), while 98.9% were successfully managed with conservative management, ureteral stent placement, percutaneous drain, or nephrostomy tube.

conclusionUL is directly associated with the complexity of the surgery. The advantages of robotic-assisted surgery in reducing UL risk indicate potential avenues for improved outcomes. Future efforts should explore the role of intraoperative and postoperative strategies to minimize this complication. Conservative management and drain or catheter placement resolve most of the ULs.

Indexed as

Kidney NeoplasmsNephrectomyPostoperative ComplicationsAdultCohort StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedReoperationRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsHereditary renal cancer syndromesPartial nephrectomyRobotic surgeryUrinary leak

Identifiers

PMID40180849
PMCPMC12255527

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

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.