ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2026
Robotic vs. laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair in patients with chronic kidney disease: a propensity score-matched analysis.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
CKD patients are susceptible to pneumoperitoneum-induced renal injury; comparative outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair are unknown. Retrospective propensity score-matched cohort using TriNetX (184 HCOs; 2015-2026). CKD adults undergoing robotic or laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair were matched 1:1 on 61 covariates (1,693 per arm at 1 month; 1,659 at 6 months). Primary outcomes were AKI and MACE; secondary outcomes were metabolic acidosis, urinary retention, hyperkalemia, and post-operative eGFR and creatinine. Cox regression, Kaplan-Meier, and competing-risk CIF were used, with E-values for unmeasured confounding. At 1 month, robotic repair had higher AKI (5.0% vs. 2.9%; HR 1.74, 95% CI 1.22-2.47; p = 0.002) and MACE (2.5% vs. 1.4%; HR 1.84; p = 0.017). At 6 months, AKI persisted (HR 1.41; p = 0.002) and urinary retention emerged (HR 1.33; p = 0.039); MACE (p = 0.112) and acidosis (p = 0.199) did not. New-onset hyperkalemia was lower with robotic (HR 0.58; p = 0.045). eGFR MDRD declined less at 1 month (Δ - 1.28 vs. - 3.21; p = 0.049); 6-month creatinine was lower (p = 0.013). CIF (deaths 1.5% vs. 1.9%) confirmed AKI; KM overstated 6-month incidence by 1.1-1.9 points. 1-month AKI E-value 2.87 (CI 1.74). Robotic inguinal hernia repair in CKD was associated with higher AKI and early MACE in the all-events analysis, but the incident AKI signal was borderline and post-operative laboratory renal function favored the robotic arm. This discordance may reflect differential ascertainment at robotic-predominant academic centers. These hypothesis-generating findings do not establish a renal safety advantage for either approach; prospective validation with KDIGO-defined AKI endpoints is required.
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.