ArticleBMC urology2026
Learning curve comparison between hand-assisted and retroperitoneoscopic living donor nephrectomy using risk-adjusted cumulative sum analysis.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to clarify how learning patterns differ between hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy(HALDN) and retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy (RDN) by applying risk-adjusted CUSUM analysis, with the goal of supporting surgical education and decision-making in donor nephrectomy.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 128 consecutive living donor nephrectomies performed at a single center, comprising 64 HALDN and 64 RDN cases. Each surgical approach was consistently performed by a different surgeon. Inverse probability weighting (IPW) was used to adjust for background differences using covariates including sex, age, BMI, MAP score, and vascular anatomy. Risk-adjusted CUSUM analysis was conducted for operative time and blood loss, and segmented regression was used to identify inflection points and slope transitions in the learning curve.
resultsBaseline characteristics were adjusted using IPW to account for differences between the HALDN and RDN groups. The inflection point in operative time appeared at the 11.8th case for HALDN and at the 34.6th case for RDN. In HALDN, the slope improved from + 103.5 to − 20.9, while in RDN, it changed from + 19.8 to − 30.5. RDN reached CUSUM zero-crossing at case 55, while HALDN did not cross zero. For blood loss, the inflection point was at case 6.6 (HALDN) and 37.8 (RDN), with post-inflection slopes of − 11.5 and − 18.6, respectively. These findings suggest HALDN allows early stabilization, whereas RDN shows greater improvement after achieving proficiency.
conclusionHALDN enables earlier stabilization, whereas RDN shows greater improvement after proficiency. These findings may inform surgical planning and training in donor nephrectomy.
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.