ArticleBMC surgery2025
Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy in the management of solitary kidney tumors: a retrospective single-center study (2012-2025).
Article in BMC surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAssess the clinical effectiveness of robotic versus standard laparoscopic partial nephrectomy in treating solitary renal tumors.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed data from those who underwent laparoscopic (LPN, n = 28) or robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN, n = 16) at our institution between September 2012 and September 2024. Comparisons included demographics, R.E.N.A.L. scores (validated for tumor complexity), perioperative metrics (warm ischemia time, blood loss, complications), and follow-up (renal function, recurrence).
resultsRAPN had significantly shorter operative time and drainage duration, with fewer complications (2 vs. 8 in LPN); 1 LPN case converted to open. All margins were negative, with clear cell carcinoma (70.45%) most common. All patients had a follow-up period of more than 6 years. Five-year overall survival: 93.75% (RAPN) vs. 89.3% (LPN). Renal function changes (sCr, GFR) did not differ significantly, with no dialysis needed.Both approaches are safe; RAPN offers better operative efficiency and recovery.
conclusionsRAPN and LPN are both reliable minimally invasive techniques for managing solitary kidney tumors. Although RAPN tended to achieve shorter operative, ischemia, and drainage times, these differences were not statistically significant. In cases of complex renal lesions with higher R.E.N.A.L. scores, RAPN may offer technical advantages. Larger, multicenter prospective studies with extended follow-up are needed to substantiate these observations.
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.