ReviewInvestigative and clinical urology2026
A bibliometric analysis of the most-cited studies on robotic nephrectomy versus laparoscopic nephrectomy: Citation trends and scientific influence.
Review in Investigative and clinical 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robotic nephrectomy has emerged as an alternative to laparoscopic nephrectomy, offering enhanced surgical precision, reduced blood loss, and faster recovery. However, its clinical effectiveness and cost-efficiency remain debated. This study aims to perform a bibliometric analysis of the 100 most-cited publications comparing robotic and laparoscopic nephrectomy, focusing on clinical, technological, and economic aspects. A bibliometric search was conducted in the Scopus database on July 26, 2025, using the keywords "robotic nephrectomy" AND "laparoscopic nephrectomy" AND "human". Articles were sorted by citation count and screened based on clinical relevance. The top 100 most-cited studies were selected, and data on authorship, institutions, countries, journals, and keywords were extracted. A total of 435 publications from 43 countries were identified, with the United States leading in publication count (n=110) and citations (n=2,497), followed by China and Italy. The studies showed comparable oncologic outcomes (positive surgical margin, 1.6%-5.4%; 3-year disease-free survival, up to 94.9%), with robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) associated with improved perioperative outcomes, including shorter warm ischemia time, lower blood loss, and fewer complications (odds ratio, 0.55). Functional outcomes favored RAPN, particularly in complex tumors (estimated glomerular filtration rate, 96% vs. 90%), though robotic approaches were more costly. Robotic nephrectomy offers perioperative and functional advantages with comparable oncologic outcomes to laparoscopic approaches, though at higher cost. This bibliometric analysis provides clinical implications for decision-making and highlights the growing support for RAPN, emphasizing the need for high-quality prospective studies to guide future research.
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.