Randomized Controlled Feasibility Trial of Robot-assisted Versus Conventional Open Partial Nephrectomy: The ROBOCOP II Study
There is no evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) and open partial nephrectomy (OPN). To assess the feasibility of trial recruitment and to compare surgical outcomes between RAPN and OPN. ROBOCOP II was designed as single-center, open-l...
Saved in:
Published in | European urology oncology Vol. 7; no. 1; pp. 91 - 97 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , , , , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
Netherlands
01.02.2024
|
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Abstract | There is no evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) and open partial nephrectomy (OPN).
To assess the feasibility of trial recruitment and to compare surgical outcomes between RAPN and OPN.
ROBOCOP II was designed as single-center, open-label, feasibility RCT. Patients with suspected localized renal cell carcinoma referred for PN were randomized at a 1:1 ratio to either RAPN or OPN.
The primary outcome was the feasibility of recruitment, assessed as the accrual rate. Secondary outcomes included perioperative and postoperative data. Data were analyzed descriptively in a modified intention-to-treat population consisting of randomized patients who underwent surgery.
A total of 50 patients underwent RAPN or OPN (accrual rate 65%). In comparison to OPN, RAPN had lower blood loss (OPN 361 ml, standard deviation [SD] 238; RAPN 149 ml, SD 122; difference 212 ml, 95% confidence interval [CI] 105-320; p < 0.001), less need for opioids (OPN 46%; RAPN 16%; difference 30%, 95% CI 5-54; p = 0.024), and fewer complications according to the mean Comprehensive Complication Index (OPN 14, SD 16; RAPN 5, SD 15; difference 9, 95% CI 0-18; p = 0.008). OPN has a shorter operative time (OPN 112 min, SD 29; RAPN 130 min, SD 32; difference -18 min, 95% CI -35 to -1; p = 0.046) and warm ischemia time (OPN 8.7 min, SD 7.1; RAPN 15.4 min, SD 7.0; difference 6.7 min, 95% CI -10.7 to -2.7; p = 0.001). There were no differences between RAPN and OPN regarding postoperative kidney function.
This first RCT comparing OPN and RAPN met the primary outcome of the feasibility of recruitment; however, the window for future RCTs is closing. Each approach has advantages over the other, and both remain safe and effective options.
For patients with a kidney tumor, open surgery and robot-assisted keyhole surgery are both feasible and safe approaches for partial removal of the affected kidney. Each approach has known advantages. Long-term follow-up will explore differences in quality of life and cancer control outcomes. |
---|---|
AbstractList | There is no evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) and open partial nephrectomy (OPN).
To assess the feasibility of trial recruitment and to compare surgical outcomes between RAPN and OPN.
ROBOCOP II was designed as single-center, open-label, feasibility RCT. Patients with suspected localized renal cell carcinoma referred for PN were randomized at a 1:1 ratio to either RAPN or OPN.
The primary outcome was the feasibility of recruitment, assessed as the accrual rate. Secondary outcomes included perioperative and postoperative data. Data were analyzed descriptively in a modified intention-to-treat population consisting of randomized patients who underwent surgery.
A total of 50 patients underwent RAPN or OPN (accrual rate 65%). In comparison to OPN, RAPN had lower blood loss (OPN 361 ml, standard deviation [SD] 238; RAPN 149 ml, SD 122; difference 212 ml, 95% confidence interval [CI] 105-320; p < 0.001), less need for opioids (OPN 46%; RAPN 16%; difference 30%, 95% CI 5-54; p = 0.024), and fewer complications according to the mean Comprehensive Complication Index (OPN 14, SD 16; RAPN 5, SD 15; difference 9, 95% CI 0-18; p = 0.008). OPN has a shorter operative time (OPN 112 min, SD 29; RAPN 130 min, SD 32; difference -18 min, 95% CI -35 to -1; p = 0.046) and warm ischemia time (OPN 8.7 min, SD 7.1; RAPN 15.4 min, SD 7.0; difference 6.7 min, 95% CI -10.7 to -2.7; p = 0.001). There were no differences between RAPN and OPN regarding postoperative kidney function.
This first RCT comparing OPN and RAPN met the primary outcome of the feasibility of recruitment; however, the window for future RCTs is closing. Each approach has advantages over the other, and both remain safe and effective options.
For patients with a kidney tumor, open surgery and robot-assisted keyhole surgery are both feasible and safe approaches for partial removal of the affected kidney. Each approach has known advantages. Long-term follow-up will explore differences in quality of life and cancer control outcomes. BACKGROUNDThere is no evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) and open partial nephrectomy (OPN).OBJECTIVETo assess the feasibility of trial recruitment and to compare surgical outcomes between RAPN and OPN.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSROBOCOP II was designed as single-center, open-label, feasibility RCT. Patients with suspected localized renal cell carcinoma referred for PN were randomized at a 1:1 ratio to either RAPN or OPN.OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSISThe primary outcome was the feasibility of recruitment, assessed as the accrual rate. Secondary outcomes included perioperative and postoperative data. Data were analyzed descriptively in a modified intention-to-treat population consisting of randomized patients who underwent surgery.RESULTS AND LIMITATIONSA total of 50 patients underwent RAPN or OPN (accrual rate 65%). In comparison to OPN, RAPN had lower blood loss (OPN 361 ml, standard deviation [SD] 238; RAPN 149 ml, SD 122; difference 212 ml, 95% confidence interval [CI] 105-320; p < 0.001), less need for opioids (OPN 46%; RAPN 16%; difference 30%, 95% CI 5-54; p = 0.024), and fewer complications according to the mean Comprehensive Complication Index (OPN 14, SD 16; RAPN 5, SD 15; difference 9, 95% CI 0-18; p = 0.008). OPN has a shorter operative time (OPN 112 min, SD 29; RAPN 130 min, SD 32; difference -18 min, 95% CI -35 to -1; p = 0.046) and warm ischemia time (OPN 8.7 min, SD 7.1; RAPN 15.4 min, SD 7.0; difference 6.7 min, 95% CI -10.7 to -2.7; p = 0.001). There were no differences between RAPN and OPN regarding postoperative kidney function.CONCLUSIONSThis first RCT comparing OPN and RAPN met the primary outcome of the feasibility of recruitment; however, the window for future RCTs is closing. Each approach has advantages over the other, and both remain safe and effective options.PATIENT SUMMARYFor patients with a kidney tumor, open surgery and robot-assisted keyhole surgery are both feasible and safe approaches for partial removal of the affected kidney. Each approach has known advantages. Long-term follow-up will explore differences in quality of life and cancer control outcomes. |
Author | Haney, Caelan Max Neuberger, Manuel Westhoff, Niklas Kowalewski, Karl-Friedrich Honeck, Patrick Sidoti Abate, Marie Angela Kriegmair, Maximilian Christian Michel, Maurice-Stephan Nuhn, Philipp Kirchner, Marietta Siegel, Fabian |
Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Karl-Friedrich surname: Kowalewski fullname: Kowalewski, Karl-Friedrich email: karl-friedrich.kowalewski@umm.de organization: Department of Urology and Urological Surgery, University Medical Centre Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany. Electronic address: karl-friedrich.kowalewski@umm.de – sequence: 2 givenname: Manuel surname: Neuberger fullname: Neuberger, Manuel organization: Department of Urology and Urological Surgery, University Medical Centre Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany – sequence: 3 givenname: Marie Angela surname: Sidoti Abate fullname: Sidoti Abate, Marie Angela organization: Department of Urology and Urological Surgery, University Medical Centre Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany – sequence: 4 givenname: Marietta surname: Kirchner fullname: Kirchner, Marietta organization: Institute of Medical Biometry, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany – sequence: 5 givenname: Caelan Max surname: Haney fullname: Haney, Caelan Max organization: Department of Urology, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany – sequence: 6 givenname: Fabian surname: Siegel fullname: Siegel, Fabian organization: Department of Urology and Urological Surgery, University Medical Centre Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany – sequence: 7 givenname: Niklas surname: Westhoff fullname: Westhoff, Niklas organization: Department of Urology and Urological Surgery, University Medical Centre Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany – sequence: 8 givenname: Maurice-Stephan surname: Michel fullname: Michel, Maurice-Stephan organization: Department of Urology and Urological Surgery, University Medical Centre Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany – sequence: 9 givenname: Patrick surname: Honeck fullname: Honeck, Patrick organization: Department of Urology and Urological Surgery, University Medical Centre Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany – sequence: 10 givenname: Philipp surname: Nuhn fullname: Nuhn, Philipp organization: Department of Urology and Urological Surgery, University Medical Centre Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany – sequence: 11 givenname: Maximilian Christian surname: Kriegmair fullname: Kriegmair, Maximilian Christian organization: Department of Urology and Urological Surgery, University Medical Centre Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany |
BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37316398$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
BookMark | eNpNkEtP4zAURi3EiPcPmM3ISzYJfkxihx1UPCqhCeqU2VpOfC1cJXGxHaSi-fGkoiBW9y7O-RbnGO0PfgCEflKSU0LLi1UOo88ZYTwnRU4o3UNHrJAyqzil-9_-Q3QW44oQMrGEEnaADrngtOSVPEL_F3owvndvYPDMDyn4rpveW9DRNa5zaYOXwekOe4sXvvEp0zG6mCbmH4Q4xq31CkNyfpioeg0DftQhbZU_sH4O0Cbfby7x8hnwor6uZ_Ujns_x3zSazSn6YXUX4Wx3T9DT7c1ydp891Hfz2dVD1vKqTBlrrKmE0JJpq8vWFkQQwZmkBdPGaiO5NlBW1LaSiN-NNk0DpdWSi7JphbT8BJ1_7K6DfxkhJtW72ELX6QH8GBWTrGRUClJMKP1A2-BjDGDVOrheh42iRG27q5Wauqttd0UKNXWfnF-7-bHpwXwZn5X5OwwUgn4 |
CitedBy_id | crossref_primary_10_1111_bju_16407 crossref_primary_10_1245_s10434_024_15470_y crossref_primary_10_1186_s43088_023_00431_3 crossref_primary_10_4081_aiua_2023_11852 crossref_primary_10_23736_S2724_6051_24_05772_0 crossref_primary_10_3390_diagnostics13213327 crossref_primary_10_3390_jcm13123553 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_euo_2023_06_003 |
Cites_doi | 10.1111/bju.15503 10.1159/000513189 10.1111/bju.12570 10.1002/rcs.1963 10.1016/j.euf.2020.06.021 10.1016/j.urology.2018.11.053 10.1097/JU.0000000000002695 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30588-8 10.1016/j.eururo.2021.12.036 10.1016/j.eururo.2022.01.036 10.1016/j.juro.2017.12.086 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-052087 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.09000.x 10.1186/s13063-021-05403-5 10.1097/JU.0000000000000194 |
ContentType | Journal Article |
Copyright | Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. |
Copyright_xml | – notice: Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. |
DBID | NPM AAYXX CITATION 7X8 |
DOI | 10.1016/j.euo.2023.05.011 |
DatabaseName | PubMed CrossRef MEDLINE - Academic |
DatabaseTitle | PubMed CrossRef MEDLINE - Academic |
DatabaseTitleList | PubMed MEDLINE - Academic |
Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database |
DeliveryMethod | fulltext_linktorsrc |
EISSN | 2588-9311 |
EndPage | 97 |
ExternalDocumentID | 10_1016_j_euo_2023_05_011 37316398 |
Genre | Journal Article |
GroupedDBID | .1- .FO 0R~ 53G AAEDW AALRI AAQFI AAXUO ACRLP AEBSH AFJKZ AFKWA AFRHN AFTJW AFXIZ AIEXJ AIKHN AITUG AJUYK ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS AMRAJ AXJTR BKOJK BNPGV EBS EFJIC EJD FDB M41 NPM ROL SPCBC SSH T5K Z5R AAYXX CITATION 7X8 |
ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c396t-2bfd977a82afa6cf50707328152adfad83ade691fc8074badbbe6fa8376bc78f3 |
ISSN | 2588-9311 |
IngestDate | Fri Aug 16 08:50:24 EDT 2024 Thu Sep 26 18:19:56 EDT 2024 Wed Oct 23 09:53:57 EDT 2024 |
IsDoiOpenAccess | false |
IsOpenAccess | true |
IsPeerReviewed | true |
IsScholarly | true |
Issue | 1 |
Keywords | Robotic surgery Partial nephrectomy Evidence-based medicine Randomized controlled trial Kidney cancer |
Language | English |
License | Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. |
LinkModel | OpenURL |
MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c396t-2bfd977a82afa6cf50707328152adfad83ade691fc8074badbbe6fa8376bc78f3 |
Notes | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 |
OpenAccessLink | https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2023.05.011 |
PMID | 37316398 |
PQID | 2826218705 |
PQPubID | 23479 |
PageCount | 7 |
ParticipantIDs | proquest_miscellaneous_2826218705 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_euo_2023_05_011 pubmed_primary_37316398 |
PublicationCentury | 2000 |
PublicationDate | 2024-Feb 2024-02-00 20240201 |
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2024-02-01 |
PublicationDate_xml | – month: 02 year: 2024 text: 2024-Feb |
PublicationDecade | 2020 |
PublicationPlace | Netherlands |
PublicationPlace_xml | – name: Netherlands |
PublicationTitle | European urology oncology |
PublicationTitleAlternate | Eur Urol Oncol |
PublicationYear | 2024 |
References | Kowalewski (10.1016/j.euo.2023.05.011_b0045) 2020 Xiong (10.1016/j.euo.2023.05.011_b0075) 2022; 81 O’Brien (10.1016/j.euo.2023.05.011_b0085) 2010; 105 Ficarra (10.1016/j.euo.2023.05.011_b0060) 2014; 113 Tsai (10.1016/j.euo.2023.05.011_b0010) 2019; 15 Anceschi (10.1016/j.euo.2023.05.011_b0040) 2021; 7 Antonelli (10.1016/j.euo.2023.05.011_b0080) 2022; 129 Kowalewski (10.1016/j.euo.2023.05.011_b0035) 2021; 11 Antonelli (10.1016/j.euo.2023.05.011_b0055) 2019 Kowalewski (10.1016/j.euo.2023.05.011_b0030) 2021; 105 Guglielmetti (10.1016/j.euo.2023.05.011_b0065) 2022; 208 Ljungberg (10.1016/j.euo.2023.05.011_b0005) 2020 Cacciamani (10.1016/j.euo.2023.05.011_b0015) 2018; 200 Ginsburg (10.1016/j.euo.2023.05.011_b0070) 2022; 81 Anderson (10.1016/j.euo.2023.05.011_b0050) 2019; 126 Davies (10.1016/j.euo.2023.05.011_b0025) 2021; 22 Mayer (10.1016/j.euo.2023.05.011_b0020) 2016; 388 |
References_xml | – year: 2020 ident: 10.1016/j.euo.2023.05.011_b0045 article-title: The Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI): proposal of a new reporting standard for complications in major urological surgery publication-title: World J Urol contributor: fullname: Kowalewski – volume: 129 start-page: 217 year: 2022 ident: 10.1016/j.euo.2023.05.011_b0080 article-title: Is off-clamp robot-assisted partial nephrectomy beneficial for renal function? Data from the CLOCK trial publication-title: BJU Int doi: 10.1111/bju.15503 contributor: fullname: Antonelli – volume: 105 start-page: 490 year: 2021 ident: 10.1016/j.euo.2023.05.011_b0030 article-title: Robotic-assisted versus conventional open partial nephrectomy (Robocop): a propensity score-matched analysis of 249 patients publication-title: Urol Int doi: 10.1159/000513189 contributor: fullname: Kowalewski – volume: 113 start-page: 936 year: 2014 ident: 10.1016/j.euo.2023.05.011_b0060 article-title: A multicentre matched-pair analysis comparing robot-assisted versus open partial nephrectomy publication-title: BJU Int doi: 10.1111/bju.12570 contributor: fullname: Ficarra – year: 2020 ident: 10.1016/j.euo.2023.05.011_b0005 contributor: fullname: Ljungberg – volume: 15 start-page: e1963 year: 2019 ident: 10.1016/j.euo.2023.05.011_b0010 article-title: Open versus robotic partial nephrectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis of contemporary studies publication-title: Int J Med Robot doi: 10.1002/rcs.1963 contributor: fullname: Tsai – volume: 7 start-page: 1391 year: 2021 ident: 10.1016/j.euo.2023.05.011_b0040 article-title: Head to head impact of margin, ischemia, complications, score versus a novel trifecta score on oncologic and functional outcomes after robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy: results of a multicenter series publication-title: Eur Urol Focus doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2020.06.021 contributor: fullname: Anceschi – volume: 126 start-page: 102 year: 2019 ident: 10.1016/j.euo.2023.05.011_b0050 article-title: Comparing off-clamp and on-clamp robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: a prospective randomized trial publication-title: Urology doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2018.11.053 contributor: fullname: Anderson – volume: 208 start-page: 259 year: 2022 ident: 10.1016/j.euo.2023.05.011_b0065 article-title: A prospective, randomized trial comparing the outcomes of open vs laparoscopic partial nephrectomy publication-title: J Urol doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000002695 contributor: fullname: Guglielmetti – volume: 388 start-page: 1027 year: 2016 ident: 10.1016/j.euo.2023.05.011_b0020 article-title: Innovation and surgical clinical trials publication-title: Lancet doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30588-8 contributor: fullname: Mayer – volume: 81 start-page: 492 year: 2022 ident: 10.1016/j.euo.2023.05.011_b0075 article-title: What happens to the preserved renal parenchyma after clamped partial nephrectomy? publication-title: Eur Urol doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2021.12.036 contributor: fullname: Xiong – volume: 81 start-page: 501 year: 2022 ident: 10.1016/j.euo.2023.05.011_b0070 article-title: Ischemia time has little influence on renal function following partial nephrectomy: is it time for urology to stop the tick-tock dance? publication-title: Eur Urol doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2022.01.036 contributor: fullname: Ginsburg – volume: 200 start-page: 258 year: 2018 ident: 10.1016/j.euo.2023.05.011_b0015 article-title: Impact of surgical factors on robotic partial nephrectomy outcomes: comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis publication-title: J Urol doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.12.086 contributor: fullname: Cacciamani – volume: 11 start-page: e052087 year: 2021 ident: 10.1016/j.euo.2023.05.011_b0035 article-title: ROBOCOP II (ROBOtic assisted versus conventional open partial nephrectomy) randomised, controlled feasibility trial: clinical trial protocol publication-title: BMJ Open doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-052087 contributor: fullname: Kowalewski – volume: 105 start-page: 293 year: 2010 ident: 10.1016/j.euo.2023.05.011_b0085 article-title: Why don’t Mercedes Benz publish randomized trials? publication-title: BJU Int doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.09000.x contributor: fullname: O’Brien – volume: 22 start-page: 678 year: 2021 ident: 10.1016/j.euo.2023.05.011_b0025 article-title: The challenge of equipoise in trials with a surgical and non-surgical comparison: a qualitative synthesis using meta-ethnography publication-title: Trials doi: 10.1186/s13063-021-05403-5 contributor: fullname: Davies – year: 2019 ident: 10.1016/j.euo.2023.05.011_b0055 article-title: Safety of on- vs off-clamp robotic partial nephrectomy: per-protocol analysis from the data of the CLOCK randomized trial publication-title: World J Urol doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000000194 contributor: fullname: Antonelli |
SSID | ssj0002020102 |
Score | 2.3738759 |
Snippet | There is no evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) and open partial nephrectomy (OPN).
To assess... BACKGROUNDThere is no evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) and open partial nephrectomy... |
SourceID | proquest crossref pubmed |
SourceType | Aggregation Database Index Database |
StartPage | 91 |
Title | Randomized Controlled Feasibility Trial of Robot-assisted Versus Conventional Open Partial Nephrectomy: The ROBOCOP II Study |
URI | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37316398 https://search.proquest.com/docview/2826218705 |
Volume | 7 |
hasFullText | 1 |
inHoldings | 1 |
isFullTextHit | |
isPrint | |
link | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV1ba9swFBYhfdnL2Ngtu6HBnmZcHMvXvWVlJV5IMroU-mYkS4KU1h6dTWnZb9xv2jmWb-kF1r04jpLIic-Xc9Oncwj5GHqBcsDs2lOhhA3-P7M5d6StVTzlzJehqgPF5SqYH3vfTvyT0ejPgLVUlWI_u75zX8n_SBXGQK64S_YBku0mhQE4B_nCESQMx3-S8RHPZXG-vcYsraGcn8EpeHUN5_XK2tRNObDgSCGK0gZPGcUqLUyTVXW7zp5zjtwS8CjhMvBkpVDKWVmcX7XEjKP1l_XB-ruVJDX7cGc9uEvqw2Nd1KnIs52E_aK4BFN02XTJXvCLM_sQonQJaniQkK6QbWZAtOR5pTr6x48tRM9baya4aee3xBDfmiEjt7Mriy38Z_P20_B6WfJhUsP1Wh50q_tcH0Qds0YPqzvGGuUd3sKoUcTxdGDSDQP4lrEweYvTfVXhLlCXmRKu094ytmyAGwazozG2DLnTFKZIcYrU8VMHt5rvuWHs-2OyN0sW81WX9YP3YBE_7HjY_pp2qb0mHd74KrvO0j0RUO0JbZ6Qx00IQ2cGj0_JSOXPyO8ei7THIh1gkdZYpIWmu1ikBot0iEWKWKQNFukAi58pIJE2SKRJQmskPifHh183B3O76exhZywOStsVWkLgwSOXax5k2seiU8yNwJnkUnMZMS5VEE91hrWaBJdCqEDzCKyhyMJIsxdknBe5ekUoBDjg5CoZOJp5HtPcc1imtQqDUGXaDSbkU3sL05-mgEt6r9wm5EN7k1NQs7h2xnNVVL9SF8Jw8IZDx5-Ql-bud9Mx7P7G4uj1Qy71hjzqgf-WjMuLSr0D_7YU7xvQ_AV7-6qF |
link.rule.ids | 315,786,790,27955,27956 |
linkProvider | Elsevier |
openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Randomized+Controlled+Feasibility+Trial+of+Robot-assisted+Versus+Conventional+Open+Partial+Nephrectomy%3A+The+ROBOCOP+II+Study&rft.jtitle=European+urology+oncology&rft.au=Kowalewski%2C+Karl-Friedrich&rft.au=Neuberger%2C+Manuel&rft.au=Sidoti+Abate%2C+Marie+Angela&rft.au=Kirchner%2C+Marietta&rft.date=2024-02-01&rft.issn=2588-9311&rft.eissn=2588-9311&rft.volume=7&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=91&rft.epage=97&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.euo.2023.05.011&rft.externalDBID=n%2Fa&rft.externalDocID=10_1016_j_euo_2023_05_011 |
thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=2588-9311&client=summon |
thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=2588-9311&client=summon |
thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=2588-9311&client=summon |