Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40823003›Full record

ArticleEuropean urology open science2025

Robot-assisted Kidney Transplantation from Deceased Donor: The European Experience.

Thomas Prudhomme, Lluis Peri, Alessio Pecoraro, Angelo Territo, Begoña Etcheverry, Milla Ortved, Andreas Røder, Idu Mirza, Graziano Vignolini, Malene Rohrsted and 10 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European urology open science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Thomas PrudhommeDepartment of Urology, Hospital Clinic, Barcelona, Spain.
Lluis PeriDepartment of Urology, Hospital Clinic, Barcelona, Spain.
Alessio PecoraroDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Angelo TerritoDepartment of Urology, Fundació Puigvert, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Begoña EtcheverryDepartment of Urology, Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain.
Milla OrtvedDepartment of Urology, Centre for Cancer and Organ Diseases, Copenhagen University Hospital - Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Andreas RøderDepartment of Urology, Centre for Cancer and Organ Diseases, Copenhagen University Hospital - Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Idu MirzaDepartment of Urology, Centre for Cancer and Organ Diseases, Copenhagen University Hospital - Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Graziano VignoliniDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Malene RohrstedDepartment of Urology, Centre for Cancer and Organ Diseases, Copenhagen University Hospital - Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Byron López de Mesa RodriguezDepartment of Urology, Hospital Clinic, Barcelona, Spain.
Jeremy MercierDepartment of Urology, Rangueil University Hospital, Toulouse, France.
Nicolas DoumercDepartment of Urology, Rangueil University Hospital, Toulouse, France.
Lorenzo MasieriDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Francesc ViguesDepartment of Urology, Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain.
Alberto BredaDepartment of Urology, Fundació Puigvert, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Sergio SerniDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Antonio AlcarazDepartment of Urology, Hospital Clinic, Barcelona, Spain.
Mireia MusqueraDepartment of Urology, Hospital Clinic, Barcelona, Spain.
Riccardo CampiDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and objective: In the context of deceased donors (DDs), robotic-assisted kidney transplantation (RAKT) is underutilized due to specific logistical and technical challenges. The aim of this study was to report the outcomes of DD-RAKT performed in centers involved in the European Association of Urology Robotic Urology Section (ERUS)-RAKT working group. Methods: This retrospective analysis is based on a prospectively collected multicenter database including data on DD-RAKT performed at seven referral ERUS-RAKT European centers from July 2015 to April 2024. Intraoperative, perioperative, and midterm functional outcomes after DD-RAKT were assessed. The decision-making strategy regarding the selection of a robotic versus an open surgical approach for kidney transplantation was also reported across the included centers. Key findings and limitations: A total of 67 patients with a median age of 36 yr (interquartile range [IQR]: 24-58) underwent DD-RAKT. Most donors were donors after brain death (80.6%), followed by donors after uncontrolled circulatory death (10.4%); there were 26 "expanded criteria" donors (39%). The median cold ischemia time was 14.8 h (IQR: 11.0-19.0). Eight patients (11.9%) had orthotopic DD-RAKT, while 59 patients (88.1%) had heterotopic DD-RAKT. The median operative time and the median rewarming time were 220 min (IQR: 180.0-252.0) and 50 min (IQR: 42-60), respectively. The major postoperative surgical complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥3) occurred in 11 patients (16%). Eighteen patients (27%) experienced delayed graft function. At a median follow-up of 27.1 mo (IQR: 9.5-59.4), graft survival rate was 92.6% and patient survival rate was 97.0%. The last median estimated glomerular filtration rate was 55.0 ml/min/1.73 m Conclusions and clinical implications: DD-RAKT is feasible and safe at experienced centers, providing a viable way of expanding transplantation access to patients with end-stage kidney disease. Notwithstanding the logistical barriers for DD-RAKT, careful recipient selection and organ matching are key factors to achieve the best perioperative and functional outcomes. Patient summary: Robotic kidney transplantation using grafts from deceased donors is technically feasible and safe in well-selected recipients at experienced referral centers, showing favorable intra- and postoperative outcomes. While robotic kidney transplantation from deceased donors may be challenging to implement in clinical practice due to organizational and logistical barriers (which may vary across hospitals and countries), careful recipient selection is essential to ensure the best perioperative and functional outcomes.

Indexed as

Deceased donorDelayed graft functionKidney transplantationRobotic-assisted kidney transplantationSurgical complications

Identifiers

PMID40823003
PMCPMC12351341

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.