ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2026
Impact of robotic access and dedicated kidney surgery teams on nephron-sparing surgery for T1 renal masses: evidence from a Spanish multicenter registry.
Article 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Partial nephrectomy is the gold standard for clinical stage T1 renal masses when technically feasible. However, real-world adoption may vary according to access to robotic platforms and organizational factors. Multicenter retrospective comparative study using the Spanish National Registry of Localized Renal Cancer during 2024 (30 hospitals). A total of 891 cases were included in the robotic versus laparoscopy/open analysis and 1121 in the dedicated-team analysis. Adults with radiologic cT1 renal masses treated with scheduled surgery and malignant histology were included. Comparisons were robotic-assisted versus laparoscopy/open approaches, and centers with a dedicated kidney surgery team versus those without it. The primary endpoint was the rate of partial nephrectomy (PN) versus radical nephrectomy (RN), analyzed overall T1 and stratified by cT1a/cT1b. Secondary endpoints (among PNs) included ischemia use and ischemia time, and recorded reasons for not performing PN grouped as technical infeasibility versus other reasons. In unadjusted analyses, PN was performed more frequently in the robotic cohort than in the laparoscopy/open cohort for cT1 (88.4% vs. 56.4%, p < 0.001), cT1a (90.2% vs. 68.7%, p < 0.001), and cT1b (84.5% vs. 32.5%, p < 0.001). Ischemia use was similar overall, while ischemia time was shorter in cT1a robotic cases (median 15 vs. 18 min, p = 0.031). Dedicated-team centers did not show higher PN rates after substage stratification; however, technical infeasibility was less frequently recorded than in non-dedicated centers (45.9% vs. 75.7%, p < 0.001). Access to robotic-assisted surgery was associated with markedly higher utilization of PN for cT1 renal masses-especially in cT1b tumors, though residual confounding cannot be excluded given the observational design. Dedicated kidney surgery teams were not associated with higher PN rates after stratification but were associated with fewer cases recorded as technical infeasibility.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42474886What 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.