ArticleWorld journal of urology2026
Prone retroperitoneal versus lateral retroperitoneal robotic assisted partial nephrectomy: a propensity score-matched comparison.
Article in World journal of urology, 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare perioperative outcomes of retroperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (rRAPN) performed in the prone (prRAPN) versus lateral (lrRAPN) position.
methodsWe reviewed 167 patients with clinically localized (cT1–2) renal masses treated with rRAPN at a high-volume tertiary center (prRAPN, n = 87; lrRAPN, n = 80). To account for baseline differences, 1:1 propensity-score matching (PSM) was performed.
resultsAfter matching, 58 patients were included per group with balanced baseline characteristics. prRAPN achieved shorter hilar access time (HAT: 5.3 vs. 12.0 min; P < 0.001), operation time (OT: 41.3 vs. 72.8 min; P < 0.001), warm ischemia time (WIT: 18.5 vs. 25.0 min; P = 0.012) and renorrhaphy time (RT: 9.0 vs. 13.5 min; P < 0.001), with lower estimated blood loss, and shorter postoperative length of stay than lrRAPN. 90-day cumulative complications, trifecta achievement, postoperative 3-day change in hemoglobin, postoperative 1-year change in eGFR and intraoperative cardiopulmonary parameters were similar. On multivariable analysis, prRAPN independently predicted shorter OT and WIT, whereas higher R.E.N.A.L. score predicted prolongation. Subgroup analyses showed that HAT was shorter across all subgroups, with potential greater intraoperative efficiency gains (shorter OT, WIT and RT) in patients with BMI < 28 kg/m2, R.E.N.A.L. < 10, and posterior tumors. Median follow-up was 20.4 months for prRAPN and 38.9 months for lrRAPN, with no difference in PFS and OS. Limitations include the retrospective, single-center design.
conclusionsprRAPN was as safe as lrRAPN and improved intraoperative efficiency. Potential benefit appeared greater in non-obese patients and in low–intermediate complexity or posterior tumors, for whom prRAPN may be preferred.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41581106What 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.