SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2026
Perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy in patients with imperative versus elective indications: 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This investigation aimed to evaluate differences in perioperative outcomes between patients with imperative versus elective indications undergoing robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN). A structured evidence synthesis was undertaken following PRISMA 2020 guidance. Electronic databases including Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were systematically screened up to January 2026 to retrieve comparative cohort studies examining RAPN across the two indication categories. The analyzed endpoints comprised operative time, renal warm ischemia time, intraoperative blood loss, transfusion events, postoperative complication profiles (with major complications defined as Clavien–Dindo grade ≥ 3), and surgical margin status. Study quality was appraised using the Newcastle–Ottawa assessment framework. Quantitative analyses were conducted using Review Manager (RevMan, version 5.4). The review methodology had been prospectively documented in the PROSPERO registry (CRD420261305308). Three retrospective cohort studies were included. The original cohorts comprised 4437 patients; in the study by Tan et al. [2021, BJU Int 128:30–35], propensity score–matched data (304 patients; 76 imperative vs. 228 elective) were used for pooling. The final meta-analysis included 936 patients (231 imperative and 705 elective). No significant difference was observed in operative time or estimated blood loss based on descriptive analyses of two studies. Additionally, no significant differences were found in WIT (MD − 0.30 min, 95% CI − 1.59 to 1.00, P = 0.65), transfusion rate (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.65–2.20, P = 0.56), or PSM (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.29–2.13, P = 0.64). However, patients with imperative indications were associated with a higher risk of major complications (OR 2.42, 95% CI 1.14–5.14, P = 0.02), while overall complication rates were similar (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.79–1.75, P = 0.41). Between-study heterogeneity was generally low. RAPN appears feasible for patients with imperative indications, with perioperative measures comparable to elective cases, but a higher risk of major complications. Careful preoperative risk assessment and perioperative management are warranted, and procedures should ideally be performed in experienced centers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41961435What 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.