American journal of surgery · 2026
Outcomes after robotic and open kidney transplant: A propensity score-matched analysis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kadri Haaris, Maffei Rossana, Dang Ryan, Hansen Keith, Yoeli Dor, Di Napoli Marissa, Yoshida Cassidy, Rodriguez Ivan, Gonçalves Carlos, Lyons Shannon, Giusti Sixto, Montague Terri, Cooper James, Choudhury Rashikh, Conzen Kendra, Adams Megan, Mekeel Kristin, Kennealey Peter, Bak Thomas, Schold Jesse D, Nydam Trevor, Pshak Thomas, Abreu Phillipe
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Robotic kidney transplant (RKT) has been noted to be an alternative procedure compared to open kidney transplant (OKT). This study compares outcomes after RKT and OKT from one transplant center.
METHODS: This was a single-center propensity score-matched observational study, 11/2021-09/2025. A multivariable propensity model was developed including recipient age, obesity, time period, pre-transplant dialysis, diabetes, and donor type, and patients were matched 2:1 OKT:RKT. Matched patients were compared using weighted or Firth penalized regression.
RESULTS: Of 1004 kidney transplants, 103 (10.3%) were robotic. Through matching, the average standardized mean difference between covariates went from 0.456 to 0.118. Outcomes after matched RKTs and OKTs were similar, except lower rates of Clavien-Dindo II complications in RKTs (7.8% vs 18.4%, p = 0.013).
CONCLUSIONS: As RKT expands, benchmarking is crucial to ensure safety. In this analysis, outcomes were similar to OKT, highlighting that it is an appropriate alternative that should continue to be refined.
METHODS: This was a single-center propensity score-matched observational study, 11/2021-09/2025. A multivariable propensity model was developed including recipient age, obesity, time period, pre-transplant dialysis, diabetes, and donor type, and patients were matched 2:1 OKT:RKT. Matched patients were compared using weighted or Firth penalized regression.
RESULTS: Of 1004 kidney transplants, 103 (10.3%) were robotic. Through matching, the average standardized mean difference between covariates went from 0.456 to 0.118. Outcomes after matched RKTs and OKTs were similar, except lower rates of Clavien-Dindo II complications in RKTs (7.8% vs 18.4%, p = 0.013).
CONCLUSIONS: As RKT expands, benchmarking is crucial to ensure safety. In this analysis, outcomes were similar to OKT, highlighting that it is an appropriate alternative that should continue to be refined.