Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40314906›Full record

ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2025

Comparison of In-Hospital Outcomes at Robot-Assisted Versus Open Partial Nephrectomy.

Francesco Di Bello, Natali Rodriguez Penaranda, Andrea Marmiroli, Mattia Longoni, Fabian Falkenbach, Quynh Chi Le, Zhe Tian, Jordan A Goyal, Claudia Collà Ruvolo, Gianluigi Califano and 10 more

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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

20 authors.

Francesco Di BelloCancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada. fran.dibello12@gmail.com.
Natali Rodriguez PenarandaCancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Andrea MarmiroliCancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Mattia LongoniCancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Fabian FalkenbachCancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Quynh Chi LeCancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Zhe TianCancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Jordan A GoyalCancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Claudia Collà RuvoloDepartment of Neurosciences, Science of Reproduction and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Gianluigi CalifanoDepartment of Neurosciences, Science of Reproduction and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Massimiliano CretaDepartment of Neurosciences, Science of Reproduction and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Fred SaadCancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Shahrokh F ShariatDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Stefano PuliattiDepartment of Urology, Ospedale Policlinico e Nuovo Ospedale Civile S. Agostino Estense Modena, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy.
Ottavio De CobelliDepartment of Urology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Alberto BrigantiVita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.
Markus GraefenMartini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Felix H K ChunDepartment of Urology, Goethe University Frankfurt, University Hospital, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Nicola LongoDepartment of Neurosciences, Science of Reproduction and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Pierre I KarakiewiczCancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe aim of this work is to quantify the magnitude of improvement in in-hospital outcomes between historical and contemporary robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RPN) versus historical and contemporary open PN (OPN).

methodsWithin the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (2010-2019), we identified patients who underwent RPN and OPN. Multivariable logistic regression models were fit.

resultsHistorical (2010-2014) versus contemporary (2015-2019) proportions were 39% (n = 5,897) versus 61% (n = 9168) for RPN and 59% (n = 7289) versus 41% (n = 5,120) for OPN. Relative to historical, contemporary RPN patients exhibited significantly better in-hospital outcomes in 6 of 12 categories that ranged from-76% for intraoperative complications to-24% for length of stay (LOS) ≥ 75th percentile. Relative to historical, contemporary OPN patients also exhibited significantly better in-hospital outcomes in 7 of 12 categories that ranged from-76% for intraoperative complications to-23% for LOS ≥ 75th percentile. When historical RPN was compared with historical OPN, RPN in-hospital outcomes were better in 10 of 12 comparisons that ranged from-75% for LOS ≥ 75th percentile to-28% for perioperative bleeding. Similarly, when contemporary RPN was compared with contemporary OPN, RPN outcomes were better in 8 of 12 comparisons that ranged from-75% for LOS ≥ 75th percentile to-27% for postoperative complications.

conclusionThe magnitude of improvement in in-hospital outcomes was more pronounced for contemporary versus historical OPN (seven improved categories) than for contemporary versus historical RPN (six improved categories). However, contemporary RPN outperformed contemporary OPN patients in eight in-hospital outcome categories.

Indexed as

Kidney NeoplasmsLength of StayNephrectomyPostoperative ComplicationsRobotic Surgical ProceduresAgedFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrognosisRetrospective StudiesComplicationsNISRCCSurgery

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.