ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2025
Robot-assisted radical nephrectomy in comparison with open and laparoscopic approaches: a Japanese single-institution retrospective study.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo appraise perioperative metrics and oncologic results for robot-assisted radical nephrectomy (RARN) in comparison with open radical nephrectomy (ORN) and laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (LRN) based on real-world experience in Japan.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective appraisal of 165 radical nephrectomy patients managed at a single center over 2015–2025: 36 RARN, 33 ORN, 96 LRN. Patient backgrounds, perioperative outcomes, and disease-free survival (DFS) rates were compared. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed based on tumor size, ≥pT2 status, and presence of venous tumor thrombi.
resultsCompared with ORN, RARN was associated with significantly reduced operative times (median: 180 vs. 235 min, p = 0.018), blood loss (58 vs. 1,187 g, p < 0.001), and hospital stays (6.5 vs. 10 days, p < 0.001). In contrast, LRN demonstrated superior perioperative outcomes compared with RARN in terms of operative times, blood loss, and length of hospital stay. Even after PSM, LRN maintained shorter hospital stays than RARN. Notably, although patients undergoing RARN exhibited a higher prevalence of complex renal tumors, including ≥ pT2 disease and venous tumor thrombi, they still showed favorable outcomes compared with ORN, highlighting its feasibility in high-risk surgical cases. Two-year DFS rates did not differ significantly between groups after adjustment.
conclusionRARN provides reliable safety and clinical effectiveness in treating advanced or technically challenging renal tumors. However, given its resource intensity and lengthier procedures, LRN is still a suitable approach in low-risk settings. The surgical approach should be selected based on tumor complexity and resource considerations.
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.