ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2026
Perioperative blood loss in robotic urologic surgery: a retrospective evaluation of estimation methods.
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.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Urology has been a leading field in the adoption of robotic surgery, which offers technical advantages and low complication rates, including notably reduced intraoperative blood loss. In this study, we aimed to examine the relationship between formula-based estimated blood loss and visually estimated intraoperative blood loss in robotic urologic procedures. In this retrospective study, 111 robot-assisted urologic surgery were included. The agreement between the visually estimated intraoperative blood loss and the estimated values calculated using different formulas (Hb dilution method formula, Hb mass method, Gross Formula, López-Picado Formula). To determine how consistent each estimation was with the visually estimated intraoperative blood loss and with each other, Bland-Altman analysis, Concordance Correlation Coefficient (CCC) and Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) were applied. Intraoperative blood loss (visual estimation) indicated a mean blood loss of 220.72 ± 212.61 mL, whereas formula-based calculations consistently yielded higher estimates: López-Picado, 721.64 ± 532 mL; Hb mass method, 667.79 ± 429 mL; Gross formula, 726.97 ± 540 mL; and Hb dilution method, 737.99 ± 545 mL. The analyses revealed that all formulas differed statistically significantly from the visually estimated intraoperative blood loss. Evaluation of agreement and consistency demonstrated that the formulas showed poor agreement both with estimated blood loss and with one another. The strongest concordance was observed between López-Picado and Gross formula. There was a large discrepancy between visually estimated intraoperative blood loss and formula-based estimations. While formula-based methods show strong internal consistency, they differ substantially from the subjective estimates commonly used.
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.