Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41034742›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2025

Comparison of laparoscopic and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for intermediate/high-complexity endophytic renal tumors (R.E.N.A.L.-NS ≥ 7): a propensity score-matched retrospective study.

Luyao Chen, Sheng Li, Fuchun Zheng, Zhongqi Li, Ruize Yuan, Ming Jiang, Yue Gao, Yanping Song, Bin Fu, Lizhi Zhou and 3 more

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

13 authors.

Luyao Chen *Jiangxi Provincial Key Laboratory of Urinary System Diseases, Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China.
Sheng Li *Jiangxi Provincial Key Laboratory of Urinary System Diseases, Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China.
Fuchun Zheng *Jiangxi Provincial Key Laboratory of Urinary System Diseases, Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China.
Zhongqi LiJiangxi Provincial Key Laboratory of Urinary System Diseases, Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China.
Ruize YuanJiangxi Provincial Key Laboratory of Urinary System Diseases, Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China.
Ming JiangJiangxi Provincial Key Laboratory of Urinary System Diseases, Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China.
Yue GaoDivision of Nephrology and Hypertension, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Yanping SongDepartment of Quality Control, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, China.
Bin FuJiangxi Provincial Key Laboratory of Urinary System Diseases, Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China.
Lizhi ZhouJiangxi Provincial Key Laboratory of Urinary System Diseases, Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China.
Situ XiongJiangxi Provincial Key Laboratory of Urinary System Diseases, Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China. ndyfy07283@ncu.edu.cn.
Jiangxi LiTechnology Department, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, China. ndyfy10178@ncu.edu.cn.
Jin ZengJiangxi Provincial Key Laboratory of Urinary System Diseases, Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China. zengjin_31217@163.com.

Funding

Foundation of Jiangxi Provincial Key Laboratory of Urinary System Diseases 2024SSY06111National Natural Science Foundation of China 82203365Natural Science Foundation of Jiangxi Province 20232BAB206104
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare operative, functional, and oncological outcomes between laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) for intermediate/high-complexity (R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score ≥ 7) endophytic renal tumors (ERTs) by propensity score matching (PSM) analysis.

methodsWe retrospectively analyzed data from 191 patients who underwent LPN (n = 120) or RAPN (n = 71) between June 2011 and June 2021. PSM was performed in a 1:1 ratio to balance preoperative characteristics, resulting in 70 matched pairs. Operative, functional, and oncological outcomes were then compared. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression identified factors associated with a trifecta and pentafecta failure, and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis compared survival outcomes.

resultsRAPN was associated with shorter median warm ischemia time (23.5 vs. 27.5 min, P < 0.001), higher trifecta achievement (60% vs. 30%, P < 0.001), and less eGFR decline at 48 h postoperatively (14.9 vs. 21.0 mL/min/1.73 m², P = 0.011) compared to LPN. There were no significant differences in other perioperative or pathology outcomes, and long-term renal function and survival outcomes were similar between the two groups. High complexity (R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score range of 10 to 12) was an independent risk factor for trifecta (OR = 2.65; 95% CI, 1.16-6.07, P = 0.021) and pentafecta (OR = 2.65; 95% CI, 1.06-6.67, p = 0.038) failures. LPN was also an independent risk factor for trifecta failure (OR = 4.53; 95% CI, 2.11-9.76, P < 0.001) but not for pentafecta failure.

conclusionRAPN demonstrates better efficacy than LPN in protecting short-term renal function and achieving trifecta, while maintaining comparable long-term outcomes in intermediate/high-complexity ERTs. The high complexity was a significant independent risk factor for failing to achieve both trifecta and pentafecta.

Indexed as

Kidney NeoplasmsLaparoscopyNephrectomyRobotic Surgical ProceduresAdultAgedFemaleHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateMaleMiddle AgedPropensity ScoreRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeKidney neoplasms nephrectomyLaparoscopyPropensity scoreRobotic surgical proceduresTreatment outcomes

Identifiers

PMID41034742
PMCPMC12487298

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.