ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2026
Predicting Surgical Outcomes in Partial Nephrectomy: Clinical Utility and External Validation of the C-Angle Nephrometry Score.
Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 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
purposeThis study was designed to perform the first external validation of the centrality angle (C-angle) as a practical nephrometry score for predicting tumor difficulty and surgical results in patients undergoing partial nephrectomy (PN).
methodsThis retrospective study included 176 patients who underwent PN between 2015 and 2025. Using coronal computed tomography measurements, patients were categorized into Group 1 (C-angle < 45°, n = 80) and Group 2 (C-angle ≥ 45°, n = 96). The two groups were compared for baseline demographics, tumor properties, and surgical results. The C-angle's correlation with existing nephrometry scores and its association with postoperative complications were also assessed.
resultsGroup 2 had significantly larger tumors (39.1 vs. 26.5 mm), alongside higher RENAL and PADUA scores (p < 0.001). The C-angle positively correlated with RENAL (r = 0.416) and PADUA (r = 0.430) scores, and negatively with the C-index (r = - 0.600) (p < 0.001 for all). In on-clamp PN, warm ischemia time and estimated blood loss were significantly higher in Group-2 (p < 0.001 and p = 0.004, respectively). Group-2 also had prolonged hospital stays (p = 0.005) and lower preserved renal function at postoperative 6-month (p = 0.048). ROC analysis predicting Clavien-Dindo ≥ 2 complications revealed the C-angle had an Area Under the Curve (AUC) of 0.688, comparable to the RENAL (0.623), PADUA (0.643), and C-index (0.682) scores, with no significant difference on pairwise DeLong testing (all p > 0.05).
conclusionsThe C-angle is a practical and valid nephrometry score for predicting tumor complexity and surgical outcomes in patients undergoing PN. Its significant correlation with established scoring systems supports its value as an adjunctive parameter in clinical decision-making.
Identifiers
42853496What 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.