SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2026
Efficacy and safety of laparoscopic versus robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for moderate-to-high complexity renal tumors (RANAL-NS ≥ 7): a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To contrast the clinical efficacy and safety of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) for moderate-to-high complexity renal tumors (RENAL nephrometry score ≥ 7). EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science databases, and PubMed were retrieved until November 2025. To pool the data, we used Stata 18.0 and Review Manager 5.4. Additionally, the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the quality of the research. Funnel plot visualization analysis and Egger’s statistical test were employed to assess publication bias. In total, 1622 patients (LPN:789; RAPN:833) were included in this meta-analysis, including eleven observational studies. Relative to RAPN, LPN had a prolonged operative time (OT)(weight mean difference[WMD] = 13.03 min;95%CI:5.63,20.43;p = 0006), longer length of stay (LOS) (WMD = 0.63days;95%CI:0.38,0.88;p < 0.00001), longer warm ischemia time (WIT) (WMD = 3.84 min;95%CI:2.06,5.62;p < 0.0001), higher conversion rate to radical nephrectomy (RN) (OR = 3.14;95%CI:1.64,6.01;p = 0.0006), higher intraoperative complications rates (OR = 1.91;95%CI:1.03,3.53;p = 0.04), higher postoperative complications rates (OR = 1.29;95%CI:1.01,1.64;p = 0.04), greater postoperative decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (WMD = 2.58mL/min/1.73 m²;95%CI:1.40,3.77;p < 0.0001). There existed no statistically significant intergroup disparities in any of the measured results, encompassing estimated blood loss (EBL), transfusion, local recurrence, and positive surgical margin (PSM) (all p > 0.05). Patients suffering through moderate-to-high complexity renal tumors (RENAL-NS ≥ 7), RAPN showed that it was more effective than LPN in lowering OT, WIT, LOS, intraoperative and postoperative complications rates, conversion rate to RN. It also shows a tendency to alleviate the decline of early renal function outcomes, which provides an important reference for clinical decision-making. However, the level of evidence is still limited by the potential risk of bias in the included studies. Therefore, additional validation using higher-level data, such as large-scale prospective randomized trials, should validate the results of this study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41741931What 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.