ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2022
Robotic versus hand-assisted laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy: comparison of two minimally invasive techniques in kidney transplantation.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prospective randomized trial of abdominal versus lumbar extraction incisions after retroperitoneal laparoscopic left nephrectomy in living donors.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Trial
- Integrating robotic donor nephrectomy into contemporary living donor programmes: Evidence and practical considerations.World journal of transplantation · 2026Article
- First Reported Asian Cases of Robot-Assisted Simultaneous Bilateral Nephrectomy With Kidney Transplantation in Autosomal Dominant Polycystic Kidney Disease: A Case Series.Annals of transplantation · 2026Article
- Robot-assistedWorld journal of transplantation · 2026Article
- From Lumbotomy to Robotic surgery: Narrative review of comparative studies of Surgical techniques in living donor nephrectomy.International urology and nephrology · 2026Review
- Non-invasive approaches to living donor nephrectomy: Best practices and innovations.Current transplantation reports · 2025Article
- Living donor transplant: RightWorld journal of transplantation · 2025Article
- Pure Laparoscopic Versus Hand-Assisted Nephrectomy: Comparative Outcomes in Living Kidney Donors.Cureus · 2025Article
- Radiologic evaluation of the kidney transplant donor and recipient.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Review
- Robotic-Assisted Nephrectomy for Living Kidney Donation-Single Center Initial Experience (Case Series) and Review of the Literature.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Robot-assisted laparoscopic retroperitoneal donor nephrectomy: a safe and efficient improvement.World journal of urology · 2024Article
- Biochemical implications of robotic surgery: a new frontier in the operating room.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Review
- Trends in kidney transplantation and living donor nephrectomy in Germany: a total population analysis from 2006 to 2021.World journal of urology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robot-assisted donor nephrectomy (RDN) is increasingly used due to its advantages such as its precision and reduced learning curve when compared to laparoscopic techniques. Concerns remain among surgeons regarding possible longer warm ischemia time. This study aimed to compare patients undergoing robotic living donor nephrectomy to the more frequently used hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy (HLDN) technique, focusing on warm ischemia time, total operative time, learning curve, hospital length of stay, donor renal function and post-operative complications. Retrospective study comparing RDN to HLDN in a collaborative transplant network. 176 patients were included, 72 in RDN and 104 in HLDN. Left-sided nephrectomy was favored in RDN (82% vs 52%, p < 0.01). Operative time was longer in RDN (287 vs 160 min; p < 0.01), while warm ischemia time was similar (221 vs 213 secs, p = 0.446). The hospital stay was shorter in RDN (3.9 vs 5.7 days, p < 0.01).Concerning renal function, a slightpersistent increase of 7% of the creatinine ratio was observed in the RDN compared to the HLDN group (1.56 vs 1.44 at 1-month checkup, p < 0.01). The results show that RDN appears safe and efficient in comparison to the gold-standard HLDN technique. Warm ischemia time was similar for both techniques, whereas RDN operative time was longer. Patients undergoing RDN had a shorter hospital stay, this being possibly mitigated by differences in center release criteria. Donor renal function needs to be assessed on a longer-term basis for both techniques.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.