SynthesisWorld journal of urology2026
Adjunctive topical hemostatic agents combined with renorrhaphy versus renorrhaphy alone during partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in World journal of urology, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePartial nephrectomy (PN) is the standard of care for T1 renal tumors, offering oncological outcomes equivalent to radical nephrectomy while preserving renal function. Intraoperative hemostasis remains a critical challenge, as warm ischemia time is independently associated with postoperative renal functional decline. Topical hemostatic agents have been increasingly adopted as adjuncts to renorrhaphy; however, their incremental benefit over suture alone remains unestablished. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of hemostatic agents combined with renorrhaphy versus renorrhaphy alone in patients undergoing PN. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis followed PRISMA guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook, with prospective registration in PROSPERO (CRD420261396802). MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched from inception to March 15, 2026, for RCTs and comparative observational studies comparing hemostatic agents combined with renorrhaphy versus renorrhaphy alone in adult PN patients. The primary outcome was blood transfusion rate (BTR); secondary outcomes included estimated blood loss (EBL), hemorrhagic complications (HC), and urinary leakage (UL). A random-effects model with REML estimation was used. Risk of bias was assessed with RoB 2 and ROBINS-I V2; certainty of evidence was graded using GRADE.
resultsFifteen studies (2 RCTs, 13 observational) comprising 3,408 patients were included from 2,281 identified (1,265 screened after duplicate removal). No significant difference was observed for BTR (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.59-1.57; I
conclusionsCurrent evidence does not demonstrate a benefit of adjunctive hemostatic agents over renorrhaphy alone. With wide intervals and low certainty for most outcomes, these data reflect an absence of evidence of benefit rather than evidence of absence, and a clinically relevant effect cannot be excluded. Routine use is not supported; adequately powered trials stratified by tumor complexity and agent class are warranted.
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.