Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40754901›Full record

ArticleBeijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences2025

[Experience summary of robot-assisted laparoscopic transplant nephrectomy].

Q Zhang, Z Chen, Y Tian, D Pan, L Liu, H Zhang, L Zhao, S Zhang, L Ma, X Hou

Abstract readEnglish Abstract
In one paragraph

Article in Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences, 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

10 authors.

Q ZhangDepartment of Urology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China.
Z ChenDepartment of Urology, Yichang Central People's Hospital, Yichang 443000, Hubei, China.
Y TianDepartment of Urology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China.
D PanDepartment of Urology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China.
L LiuDepartment of Urology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China.
H ZhangDepartment of Urology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China.
L ZhaoDepartment of Urology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China.
S ZhangDepartment of Urology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China.
L MaDepartment of Urology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China.
X HouDepartment of Urology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo review and summarize the experience of robot-assisted laparoscopic transplant nephrectomy, share the surgical steps and technical key points, and provide a reference for clinical practice.

methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on the perioperative data of 5 patients who underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy at Peking University Third Hospital from August 2023 to December 2024. The surgical steps and key points were summarized. The continuous variables were described by medians(ranges).

resultsA total of 5 patients were included in the analysis, of whom 2 were male and 3 were female. The median age of the patients was 37 (31-68) years. The median time from kidney transplantation to donor nephrectomy was 10 (3-22) years. The indications for donor nephrectomy included recurrent hematuria, abdominal pain, malignant tumor of the transplanted kidney, and recurrent infection with hydronephrosis of the transplanted kidney. The excised transplanted kidneys from all the 5 patients had a single renal artery and a single renal vein. The median operation time was 212 (145-351) min, the median blood loss was 300 (20-500) mL, and the median post-operative hospital stay was 7 (4-25) days. Only 1 patient experienced intraoperative complications, who experienced an external iliac artery injury during the operation and underwent suture repair. No patient died during the perioperative period. Postoperative pathological results showed that 3 patients had end-stage non-functional kidneys, 1 patient had BK virus-associated urothelial carcinoma, and 1 patient had chronic pyelonephritis with renal parenchymal atrophy.

conclusionRobot-assisted laparoscopic transplant nephrectomy as a new surgical approach is feasible and safe. Compared with traditional open transplant nephrectomy, its advantage lies in the ability to directly observe and prioritize the management of the renal pedicle of the transplanted kidney, while completely freeing and removing the transplanted kidney outside the renal capsule. With the continuous accumulation of experience, this surgical technique is expected to become a powerful alternative to traditional open transplant nephrectomy.

Indexed as

Kidney TransplantationLaparoscopyNephrectomyRobotic Surgical ProceduresAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOperative TimeRetrospective StudiesKidney transplantationNephrectomyRobotic surgical proceduresTransplants

Identifiers

PMID40754901
PMCPMC12330918

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.