ArticleTranslational andrology and urology2025
Prone versus lateral retroperitoneoscopic partial nephrectomy for posterior tumors in adults: technique and clinical outcomes.
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.
- Prone retroperitoneal versus lateral retroperitoneal robotic assisted partial nephrectomy: a propensity score-matched comparison.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Prone retroperitoneal robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction.Frontiers in surgery · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Very limited information is available about the prone retroperitoneoscopic partial nephrectomy (RPN) in adults. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and clinical outcomes of prone RPN for posterior tumors in comparison with traditional lateral RPN in adults. Methods: The recordings of 101 patients underwent RPN from January 2018 to March 2023 were retrospectively reviewed. Fifty-nine patients underwent surgeries with lateral RPN, and 42 underwent surgeries with prone RPN. Operative time, warm ischemia time, blood loss, renal function, operative complications, and arterial blood gas analysis were recorded and compared between the two groups. Additionally, a dorsal deviation score (DDS) was developed to quantitate the degree to which the tumor was dorsal, which helped to select a suitable operative approach clinically. Results: Patients in prone RPN group had shorter operative time (P<0.001), warm ischemia time (P=0.003), and less blood loss (P=0.03) in comparison with lateral RPN. In arterial blood gas analysis, no significant differences in arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO Conclusions: Prone RPN is a feasible operative approach in clinical practice, and is superior to lateral RPN for moderate to severe posterior tumors, especially posterior hilar tumors.
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.