ArticleBMC urology2026
Single-position versus traditional retroperitoneal laparoscopic nephroureterectomy for UTUC: long-term survival and perioperative outcomes.
Article in BMC urology, 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTraditional retroperitoneal laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy (TRLRNU) for upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) requires intraoperative repositioning, increasing operative time and risk. A modified single-position approach (SRLRNU) may improve perioperative efficiency.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 276 UTUC patients who underwent either SRLRNU (n = 131) or TRLRNU (n = 145) from 2020 to 2024. In SRLRNU, patients remained in a fixed oblique lateral decubitus position throughout, enabling complete nephroureterectomy and bladder cuff excision without repositioning. Detailed surgical steps and port configurations were standardized and are presented in this study. Perioperative and oncologic outcomes were compared between groups. Survival analyses were conducted using Kaplan–Meier and Cox regression models. Subgroup analyses were performed according to tumor stage and pathological characteristics.
resultsThe SRLRNU group showed significantly shorter operative time (124.47 ± 42.54 min vs. 160.11 ± 51.43 min, p < 0.001) and reduced blood loss (47.61 ± 140.75 ml vs. 71.45 ± 108.42 ml, p < 0.001), without compromising margin status or complication rates. No significant differences were observed in OS, CSS, PFS, or RFS between the two groups (all p > 0.05). Univariable and multivariable analysis suggested T stage, age, and ASA score as independent predictors of OS in the SRLRNU group. Hypoalbuminemia was significantly less frequent in the SRLRNU group (60.31% vs. 77.24%, p = 0.002).
conclusionSRLRNU appears to be a safe and efficient alternative to TRLRNU, offering improved perioperative efficiency. Oncologic outcomes were comparable between groups during mid-term follow-up; however, given the retrospective design and follow-up imbalance, these findings should be interpreted as exploratory. Further studies with longer and more balanced follow-up are warranted.
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.