Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41553579›Full record

ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2026

Perioperative outcomes after Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for very small (≤ 2 cm) versus larger small (> 2-4 cm) renal tumors: a multi-institutional propensity score-matched study.

Ryotaro Tomida, Tomoya Fukawa, Yoshito Kusuhara, Keisuke Hashimoto, Marika Atagi, Fumiya Kadoriku, Testuhiro Yano, Mitsuki Nishiyama, Kyotaro Fukuta, Saki Kobayashi and 14 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

24 authors.

Ryotaro TomidaDepartment of Urology, Tokushima University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Tokushima, Japan. tomida.r@tokushima-u.ac.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2518-0197
Tomoya FukawaDepartment of Urology, Tokushima University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Tokushima, Japan.
Yoshito KusuharaDepartment of Urology, Tokushima University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Tokushima, Japan.
Keisuke HashimotoDepartment of Urology, Ehime Prefectural Central Hospital, Matsuyama, Japan.
Marika AtagiDepartment of Urology, Tokushima University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Tokushima, Japan.
Fumiya KadorikuDepartment of Urology, Tokushima University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Tokushima, Japan.
Testuhiro YanoDepartment of Urology, Tokushima University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Tokushima, Japan.
Mitsuki NishiyamaDepartment of Urology, Tokushima University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Tokushima, Japan.
Kyotaro FukutaDepartment of Urology, Tokushima Prefectural Central Hospital, Tokushima, Japan.
Saki KobayashiDepartment of Urology, Tokushima University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Tokushima, Japan.
Ryoei MinatoDepartment of Urology, Tokushima University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Tokushima, Japan.
Keito ShiozakiDepartment of Urology, Tokushima University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Tokushima, Japan.
Kei DaizumotoDepartment of Urology, Tokushima University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Tokushima, Japan.
Yutaro SasakiDepartment of Urology, Tokushima University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Tokushima, Japan.
Tadanori HosokawaDepartment of Urology, Japanese Red Cross Kochi Hospital, Kochi, Japan.
Kazuyoshi IzumiDepartment of Urology, Takamatsu Red Cross Hospital, Takamatsu, Japan.
Iku NinomiyaDepartment of Urology, Ehime Prefectural Central Hospital, Matsuyama, Japan.
Kunihisa YamaguchiDepartment of Urology, Tokushima University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Tokushima, Japan.
Yasuyo YamamotoDepartment of Urology, Tokushima University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Tokushima, Japan.
Hirofumi IzakiDepartment of Urology, Tokushima Prefectural Central Hospital, Tokushima, Japan.
Takushi NarodaDepartment of Urology, Japanese Red Cross Kochi Hospital, Kochi, Japan.
Masahito YamanakaDepartment of Urology, Takamatsu Red Cross Hospital, Takamatsu, Japan.
Kenjiro OkamotoDepartment of Urology, Ehime Prefectural Central Hospital, Matsuyama, Japan.
Junya FurukawaDepartment of Urology, Tokushima University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Tokushima, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The detection of incidentally identified small renal masses has increased, prompting greater use of nephron-sparing procedures. Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) is established for tumors ≤ 4 cm; however, evidence directly comparing its use for very small tumors (≤ 2 cm) and slightly larger lesions (> 2-4 cm) is limited, particularly in Asian populations. We evaluated how tumor size affects perioperative outcomes, renal function preservation, and oncological safety in RAPN. The data of 649 Japanese patients who underwent RAPN for clinically localized renal cell carcinoma were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were grouped according to maximal tumor diameter (≤ 2 cm or > 2-4 cm). Propensity score matching was performed to mitigate disparities in patient backgrounds including tumor complexity and location. Outcomes assessed included operative and console times, warm ischemia time, estimated blood loss (EBL), postoperative complications, trifecta and pentafecta achievement, renal functional preservation, and recurrence-free survival (RFS). After matching, 193 patient pairs were included. Tumors ≤ 2 cm were associated with significantly shorter operative and console times, lower warm ischemia, reduced EBL, fewer major complications, and higher trifecta achievement, compared with tumors > 2-4 cm. Renal function preservation was comparable between groups. Oncological outcomes were excellent in both cohorts, with 5-year RFS of 98.2% and 98.0% for tumors ≤ 2 cm and > 2-4 cm, respectively. RAPN for tumors ≤ 2 cm offers superior perioperative outcomes without compromising oncological control, compared with that for tumors > 2-4 cm. These findings support RAPN as a safe and effective nephron-sparing approach for managing incidentally detected sub-2 cm renal tumors.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Renal CellKidney NeoplasmsNephrectomyRobotic Surgical ProceduresAgedBlood Loss, SurgicalFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOperative TimeOrgan Sparing TreatmentsPostoperative ComplicationsPropensity ScoreRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomePerioperative outcomesRenal cell carcinomaRobot-assisted partial nephrectomySmall renal tumorsTrifectaTumor size

Identifiers

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.