SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2026
Transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal single-port robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative and functional outcomes.
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 systematically compare the safety and efficacy of the transperitoneal (TP) and retroperitoneal (RP) approaches in single-port robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (SP-RAPN). PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase were searched for comparative studies published before October 2025. The primary evaluated outcomes were grouped as Perioperative Outcomes (operative time, blood loss, ischemia time, positive surgical margin, postoperative eGFR, and hospital stay) and Surgical Safety (complication rate). Study inclusion and exclusion standards followed the PICOS guidelines. Four comparative studies with 384 patients (188 TP and 196 RP) were analyzed. Compared with the RP group, the TP group had higher intraoperative blood loss (WMD = 27.95 mL, 95% CI = 4.90-51.02, p = 0.018), longer hospital stay (WMD = 0.56 days, 95% CI = 0.34-0.78, p < 0.001), and higher absolute postoperative eGFR (WMD = 6.87, 95% CI = 2.65-11.10, p = 0.001). Operative time did not differ significantly in the main analysis (p = 0.356); an exploratory sensitivity analysis suggested a possible small difference (≈ 12 min) that requires confirmation. Warm ischemia time, positive surgical margin rate, and complication rate showed no significant differences between the two groups. Sensitivity analysis confirms the robustness of these findings, with overall low heterogeneity. Both transperitoneal and retroperitoneal SP RAPN are safe and feasible based on this limited evidence. Preliminary findings suggest the RP approach may offer advantages in blood loss, hospital stay, and renal preservation, but these results are hypothesis generating. Importantly, tumor location strongly influenced approach selection, and observed differences may be attributable to tumor location rather than the approach itself; causal inference is not possible from this observational data. Validation in larger, prospective, and preferably randomized studies is required.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42474829What 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.