SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2026
Robot-assisted versus non-robotic partial nephrectomy for completely endophytic renal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Completely endophytic renal tumors (CERTs), which are entirely confined within the renal parenchyma, present substantial technical challenges during nephron-sparing surgery. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) with laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) and open partial nephrectomy (OPN) specifically for CERTs. PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched through August 24, 2026. Eligible comparative studies directly evaluated RAPN versus LPN and/or OPN. Continuous outcomes were summarized using mean differences (MDs) and binary outcomes using risk ratios (RRs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RAPN-LPN and RAPN-OPN comparisons were analyzed separately. Study quality was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS), and the protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD420261488778). Seven studies involving 896 patients were included, of whom 430 underwent RAPN and 466 underwent LPN or OPN. No statistically significant difference in operative time was detected between RAPN and either LPN or OPN. Estimated blood loss also did not differ significantly between RAPN and LPN (MD - 14.92 mL, 95% CI - 48.82 to 18.98; P = 0.39) or OPN (MD - 85.62 mL, 95% CI - 176.01 to 4.78; P = 0.06). RAPN was associated with a shorter hospital stay than OPN (MD - 1.64 days, 95% CI - 2.29 to - 0.98; P < 0.00001), whereas no significant difference was observed versus LPN. The lower transfusion risk with RAPN versus OPN was of borderline significance (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.16-0.99; P = 0.05). No statistically significant differences were detected in conversion to radical nephrectomy, major complications, positive surgical margins, or 1-year postoperative eGFR. Ischemia-related outcomes were reported descriptively because operative ischemia strategies differed across studies. Overall, RAPN showed selected perioperative differences mainly in comparison with OPN, whereas most outcomes did not differ significantly from LPN. These findings should be interpreted cautiously because the evidence was based on a small number of predominantly observational studies with substantial heterogeneity for several outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42828586What 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.