ArticleJournal of minimal access surgery2026
Initial experience with robotic-assisted kidney transplantation: A single-centre descriptive, retrospective study with technical modifications.
Article in Journal of minimal access surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond rewarming time: graft thermometry and cooling technologies in robot-assisted kidney transplantation-a scoping review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Robot-assisted kidney transplantation in obese recipients: wound-risk reduction, graft safety, and access implications.Journal of robotic surgery · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRobot-assisted kidney transplantation (RAKT) has demonstrated non-inferiority to open kidney transplantation (OKT), with particular benefits for obese patients. We report our single-centre initial experience implementing RAKT with technical modifications. PATIENTS AND
methodsThis retrospective descriptive study analysed consecutive living donor kidney transplants performed between September 2020 and March 2021. From 75 potential candidates, patients were selected for RAKT based on exclusion criteria, including obesity (body mass index [BMI] >35 kg/m²), severe atherosclerosis and previous complex abdominal surgery. Ten patients underwent RAKT and were matched 1:3 with OKT controls using propensity score matching based on age, sex, BMI and diabetes status. Technical modifications included polyglactin mesh wrapping for graft stabilisation and continuous cooling and a custom robotic arterial punch device. The primary surgeon completed 35 RAKT procedures at a high-volume centre before initiating this programme.
resultsTen RAKT patients (90% male, mean age 41.5 ± 10.2 years, mean BMI 27.0 ± 3.2 kg/m²) were compared to 30 matched OKT controls. Mean operative time was 263 ± 29 min for RAKT versus 185 ± 22 min for OKT (P < 0.001). Warm ischaemia time averaged 52.2 ± 16.8 min for RAKT versus 3.2 ± 1.1 min for OKT (P < 0.001). All grafts functioned immediately except one delayed graft function in each group. Hospital stay averaged 8.0 ± 1.5 days for RAKT versus 7.2 ± 1.8 days for OKT (P = 0.21). At median follow-up of 60 months, graft survival was 100% in both groups. No incisional hernias occurred in RAKT patients versus 2 (6.7%) in OKT. Overall, 30-day complications were 10% for RAKT versus 20% for OKT (P = 0.66).
conclusionsThis small descriptive study demonstrates RAKT feasibility with technical modifications at an experienced centre. While no definitive conclusions can be drawn from this limited experience, our results align with larger studies supporting RAKT safety. The polyglactin mesh technique for continuous cooling and manipulation, along with the absence of incisional hernias, warrants further investigation in larger cohorts.
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.