ArticleThe international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS2025
Retroperitoneal Versus Transperitoneal Robot Assisted Partial Nephrectomy: A Prospective Controlled Non-Randomized Single Centre Study Non-Inferiority Design.
Article in The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS, 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.
- Retroperitoneal Renal Surgery with the Hugo™ RAS System: Feasibility, Setting and Perioperative Outcomes of the First Dedicated Series.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- 3D surgical navigation contributes to renal function preservation during robot-assisted partial nephrectomy.Journal of robotic 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe value of the retroperitoneal (R-RAPN) compared with the conventional transperitoneal (T-RAPN) approach in robot-assisted partial nephrectomy has not been finally clarified. The current work's objective was to prospectively investigate R-RAPN versus T-RAPN.
methodsThe study was designed as a prospective, controlled, non-randomized study with a non-inferiority design. The primary endpoint was Trifecta achievement. The sample size calculation required 141 T-RAPN and 94 R-RAPN.
resultsWhen the recruitment target of 141 was reached in the T-RAPN arm, only 34 R-RAPN had been performed, so the study was terminated early. Trifecta as the main outcome parameter was achieved in 82% of the R-RAPN and 76% of the T-RAPN groups, so no sign for inferiority could be detected (p = 0.6).
conclusionsIn this prospective study, there was no evidence of inferiority of R-RAPN compared to T-RAPN for the Trifecta endpoint. R-RAPN may be an individually advantageous alternative to T-RAPN for selected patients.
trial registrationThe study was registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00028619).
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.