Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40436689›Full record

ArticleUrologic oncology2025

Feasibility and perioperative outcomes of re-operative retroperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy.

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

Abstract 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. 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.

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

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.

Milan H PatelUrologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.
Ruben Blachman-BraunUrologic 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 present our experience with re-operative retroperitoneal partial nephrectomy (Re-RetroPN), evaluate its feasibility and safety, and compare perioperative outcomes, including renal function metrics, pathology, and complication rates, between patients that underwent Re-RetroPN and those that underwent re-operative transperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy (Re-TransPN).

methodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted identifying patients who underwent re-operative robotic partial nephrectomy (PN) at our institution from January 2008 to December 2024. Demographic, clinical, perioperative, and pathological data were recorded and analyzed.

resultsA total of 186 patients who underwent robotic re-operative PN were analyzed (173 Re-TransPN vs. 13 Re-RetroPN), and 1 patient was converted from Re-RetroPN to Re-TransPN. Overall, 17 (9.1%) had a solitary kidney, 138 (74.2%) underwent their second ipsilateral partial nephrectomy, and 48 (25.8%) had their third. A total of 894 tumors were removed (825 with Re-TransPN, 69 with Re-RetroPN), with a median of 3 (2-6) tumors per procedure. Perioperative metrics, including estimated blood loss, operative time, and percentage of cases performed without hilar clamping were similar between groups. Positive surgical margins were observed in 7 (4.0%) patients in the Re-TransPN group, with no positive margins reported in the Re-RetroPN group. Renal function parameters at 3 months and complication rates were comparable between groups, with 1 (7.7%) patient in the Re-RetroPN group experiencing a Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3 complications.

conclusionRe-RetroPN is a feasible and safe option for carefully selected patients, with comparable outcomes to Re-TransPN. It provides advantages in certain scenarios, such as improved access to posteriorly located tumors and avoidance of the peritoneal cavity.

Indexed as

Kidney NeoplasmsNephrectomyReoperationRobotic Surgical ProceduresAgedFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetroperitoneal SpaceRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeHereditary kidney cancer syndromesPerioperative outcomesRe-operative Retroperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomyRe-operative transperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy

Identifiers

PMID40436689
PMCPMC12344744

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.