ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2026
Comparison of outcomes between transperitoneal and retroperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies.
Article in International urology and nephrology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A critical appraisal of the causal association between sleep disorders and nephrolithiasis using Mendelian randomization.International urology and nephrology · 2026Review
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
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the perioperative and functional outcomes of transperitoneal (TP) and retroperitoneal (RP) approaches in robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) for renal cell carcinoma (RCC).
methodsA systematic literature search of PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov was conducted from inception to April 2026. Comparative studies that reported the outcomes of interest between TP RAPN and RP RAPN for renal cell carcinoma were included. Pooled effective sizes, including odds ratio (OR) and weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95 confidence intervals (CI), were estimated under fixed or random effect models. Further sensitivity analyses were performed to explore potential sources of heterogeneity. The study protocol was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD420261390561).
resultsA total of 32 comparative studies were included, involving 6299 patients in the TP RAPN group and 4583 in the RP RAPN group, respectively. No significant differences were observed in baseline characteristics. Patients undergoing RP RAPN had a shorter operation time (OT, WMD: 15.53 min, 95%CI 9.24-21.83, P < 0.001), lower estimated blood loss (EBL, WMD: 32.34 ml, 95%CI 21.9-42.78, P < 0.001), and shorter length of stay (LOS, WMD: 0.42 days, 95%CI 0.22-0.63, P < 0.001) compared to TP RAPN. No significant differences were observed in warm ischemia time (WIT, P = 0.24), conversion to open or radical surgery (P = 0.11 and P = 0.18, respectively), positive surgical margin (PSM, P = 0.22), overall complications (P = 0.08), major complications (the Clavien-Dindo classification ≥ 3, P = 0.32), or postoperative renal function (postoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR): P = 0.22; postoperative 3-6 month eGFR: P = 0.49; postoperative 1-year eGFR: P = 0.55). Further sensitivity analyses validated the above findings.
conclusionsThis study suggests that the RP RAPN may be superior to TP RAPN in terms of shorter OT, lower EBL, and shorter LOS. Nevertheless, given the limitations of this analysis, these findings should be interpreted cautiously, and further well-designed randomized controlled trials are required to validate our results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42893465What 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.