ArticleAdvances in urology2026
Comparative Analysis of Robotic and Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy: Insights Into Precision and Efficiency.
Article in Advances in urology, 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.
- Comparative Analysis of Robotic and Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy: Insights Into Precision and Efficiency.Advances in urology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Partial nephrectomy represents a nephron-sparing strategy aimed at preserving renal function while balancing increased technical complexity and potential oncological considerations. Innovations in minimally invasive surgery, especially laparoscopic (LPN) and robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RPN), have markedly enhanced patient recovery durations and facilitated increased surgical precision. This study compares the outcomes of these approaches across key surgical parameters. Methods: This retrospective analysis included 205 patients who underwent LPN (143) or RPN (62) between 2008 and 2024. The parameters examined encompassed ischemia time, blood loss, tumor diameter (as assessed by CT and pathology), and postoperative recovery. Statistical methods: Results: No significant differences were found in ischemia time (LPN: 22.3 min vs. RPN: 20.6 min, Conclusion: This study demonstrates that, within a single-surgeon experience, transition from LPN to RPN can be achieved safely, with comparable perioperative outcomes. These findings support feasibility rather than superiority of robotic surgery, and broader conclusions regarding patient benefit or cost require prospective randomized evaluation.
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.