ArticleBJU international2025
Robot-assisted vs open kidney transplantation from deceased donors.
Article in BJU international, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Robot-assisted versus open kidney transplantation: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Robot-assisted versus open kidney transplantation in patients who previously underwent an open kidney transplant.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Beyond living donation: robot-assisted kidney transplantation using deceased-donor grafts-a scoping review of selection, ischaemia logistics, and allograft outcomes.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Abdominopelvic Preoperative Imaging in Adult Candidates for Kidney Transplant: A Systematic Review of Its Impact on Surgical Decision-making.European urology open science · 2026Review
- Robot-assisted kidney transplantation in living and deceased donors: a six-year experience.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Early Experience With Robotic Kidney Transplantation With Left-Sided Graft Implantation: Technical Considerations and Short-Term Outcomes.The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS · 2026Article
- Robot-assisted kidney transplantation in obese recipients: wound-risk reduction, graft safety, and access implications.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Initial experience with robotic-assisted kidney transplantation: A single-centre descriptive, retrospective study with technical modifications.Journal of minimal access surgery · 2026Article
- Robot-assisted third kidney transplantation in a patient with exhausted iliac fossae: A case report.Therapeutic advances in urologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo test the hypothesis that the type of surgical approach, robot-assisted kidney transplantation (RAKT) vs open kidney transplantation (OKT), impacts intra-operative and postoperative surgical outcomes of patients receiving kidney transplantation from deceased donors. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis was a multicentre retrospective cohort study including 676 patients who received RAKT or OKT in the period 2015 to 2023 in one of seven European academic centres. Patient heterogeneity at baseline was balanced using 2:1 nearest neighbour propensity-score matching. Intra- and postoperative complications were reported according to the Clavien-Dindo classification system. Kaplan-Meier estimates and the log-rank test were used to compare dialysis-free survival (DFS), graft survival (GS), reintervention-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) according to the surgical approach used.
resultsAfter propensity-score matching, two cohorts of 72 recipients (65%) in the OKT group and 37 (35%) in the RAKT group with similar baseline characteristics were obtained. The site of transplantation was the right iliac fossa in 59 (82%) and 28 patients (76%) undergoing OKT and RAKT, respectively. RAKT was associated with shorter rewarming time (53 vs 39 min), total vascular anastomosis time (55 vs 36 min), and arterial (25 vs 17 min) and venous (28 vs 18 min) anastomosis times (all P < 0.001), whereas OKT was associated with reduced surgical time (180 vs 200 min; P = 0.01). Intra-operative complications were more commonly reported in recipients undergoing OKT (8.3% vs 2.7%; P = 0.4). During follow-up, no differences in terms of postoperative complications, DFS, GS, RFS or OS were detected.
conclusionsThis is the largest comparative study of RAKT vs OKT in the deceased donor setting. While it confirms the safety of RAKT from deceased donors, it underscores the superiority of RAKT in selected patients in terms of achieving vascular anastomosis and rewarming time in a shorter timeframe.
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.