ArticleTranslational andrology and urology2026
Comparison of the efficacy of different models of KangDuo surgical robots and the da Vinci surgical robots in partial nephrectomy of RENAL score ≤9 tumors.
Article in Translational andrology and 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (PN) is becoming increasingly popular for patients with localized T1 renal tumors, but its widespread adoption is limited by high costs. The domestically developed KangDuo robotic system has been introduced to address this issue; however, data comparing different models of the KangDuo system with the da Vinci system are lacking. This study aims to compare the safety and efficacy of different models of the KangDuo surgical robot system versus the da Vinci surgical robot in PN for tumors with a RENAL [radius (R), exophytic/endophytic (E), nearness to collecting system/sinus (N), anterior/posterior (A), and location relative to polar lines (L)] score ≤9. Methods: This study collected clinical data from 124 patients who underwent PN at Peking University First Hospital, Miyun District, between January 2024 and December 2025. Among them, 63 patients underwent surgery with the KangDuo robot, including 52 patients with the KD-SR-1000 system and 11 patients with the KD-SR-2000 system. Meanwhile, 61 patients who underwent da Vinci robot-assisted surgery were selected as the control group, including 46 patients with the da Vinci Si system and 15 patients with the da Vinci Xi system. All surgeries were performed by experienced surgeons specializing in robotic urological surgery. Perioperative indicators such as console time, operative time, warm ischemia time, estimated intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative hospital stay were recorded. Results: There were no statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups. All patients successfully completed the surgery without conversion to open surgery or laparoscopic surgery. Compared with the da Vinci robot group, the KangDuo robot system group had significantly longer console time, operative time, and postoperative hospital stay. The estimated intraoperative blood loss in the KD-SR-1000 group was significantly higher than that in the da Vinci Si group. All postoperative surgical margins were negative. No significant differences were observed in other perioperative indicators. Conclusions: When performed by an experienced surgeon, the KangDuo surgical robot system was not shown to be inferior to the da Vinci system in key surgical outcomes, perioperative safety, and preliminary oncological results for PN procedures of RENAL score ≤9 Tumors. However, the KangDuo group had longer operative time, console time, and postoperative hospital stay.
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.