SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2026
Emerging robotic platforms in partial nephrectomy: a comparative systematic review and network 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. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advancements in Single-Port Robotic Urologic Surgery: A Comprehensive Review of Contemporary Innovations and Outcomes.Current urology reports · 2026Review
- Comparison of the efficacy of different models of KangDuo surgical robots and the da Vinci surgical robots in partial nephrectomy of RENAL score ≤9 tumors.Translational andrology and urology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) is the preferred minimally invasive nephron-sparing technique, with outcomes comparable to open and laparoscopic surgery. While most evidence derives from the da Vinci system, newer robotic platforms such as Hugo, Hinotori, KangDuo and MP1000 are emerging. This systematic review and network meta-analysis evaluated perioperative outcomes across available RAPN platforms. A systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and Scopus identified studies reporting RAPN outcomes across available robotic platforms. Eligible studies included randomized and observational cohorts. Risk of bias was assessed with ROBINS-I. Outcomes included in the analysis operative time (OT), estimated blood loss (EBL), and length of hospital stay (LOS). A frequentist NMA using the "netmeta" R package generated standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% CIs, and P-scores ranked platform performance. The review was registered on PROSPERO (ID: CRD420251032233). This review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Thirteen studies (n = 2,450) were included. Under fixed-effects model, da Vinci SP (SMD - 0.63, 95% CI - 0.87 to - 0.40) and Xi (-0.52, 95% CI - 0.67 to - 0.38) revealed shorter operative times; however, under random-effects models these differences were not statically significant due to substantial heterogeneity. Heterogeneity (I² ≈ 84%) attenuated these effects. For ischemia time, Hugo RAS (-0.88, 95% CI - 1.45 to - 0.30) and Xi (-0.58, 95% CI - 0.73 to - 0.44) outperformed Si, though differences lost significance under random-effects (I² >90%). No significant differences were found for length of stay, blood loss, or R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry scores, although ranking differences were observed. Preoperative outcomes were revealed a comparable outcome using emerging robotic system with the established system. Favourable trends in operative and ischemia times were showed in some platforms; however, these differences were not vigorous under random-effects models and are limited by substantial heterogeneity. This raised the need for long-term, comparative follow-up studies, as the current evidence remains elementary.
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.