ArticleCancer medicine2026
Robotic Partial Nephrectomy: Different Surgical Approaches for Different Locations.
Article in Cancer medicine, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe adoption of robotic partial nephrectomy has grown significantly over the past decade, prompting a debate on the merits of transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal surgical access. This study evaluated the association between surgical route (transperitoneal, TRPN; retroperitoneal, RRPN) and pentafecta achievement using a detailed location classification.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 368 patients who underwent RPN. Tumor location was classified into four main categories (anteromedial, AM; anterolateral, AL; posteromedial, PM; posterolateral, PL). Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) with covariate balancing propensity score (CBPS) balanced baseline covariates. Weighted logistic regression assessed the interaction between surgical approach and location on pentafecta achievement. Statistical methods employed included the binomial test, chi-square test, and Mann-Whitney U test.
resultsAfter IPTW, all covariates were balanced (SMD < 0.1). Compared with RRPN, TRPN significantly reduced pentafecta odds for PL (OR = 0.03, 95% CI 0.005-0.13, p < 0.001) and PM tumors (OR = 0.08, 95% CI 0.015-0.39, p = 0.002), but significantly increased odds for AL tumors (OR = 10.45, 95% CI 2.91-37.48, p < 0.001). No significant difference was found for AM tumors (OR = 0.13, p = 0.053). Low R.E.N.A.L. complexity independently predicted higher pentafecta odds (OR = 3.67, p = 0.034).
conclusionsA location-guided strategy is supported: TRPN is superior for AL tumors, while RRPN achieves better pentafecta rates for PL and PM tumors. Individualized approach selection based on detailed tumor anatomy is essential. Prospective multicenter studies are warranted to validate these findings.
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.