Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22532364›Full record

ArticleDer Urologe. Ausg. A2012

[Radical cystectomy - pro laparoscopic].

J Rassweiler, K Godin, A S Goezen, D Kusche, P Chlosta, F Gaboardi, C C Abbou, R van Velthoven

Abstract readEnglish Abstract
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Laparoscopic radical cystectomy and nephroureterectomyMedicine and pharmacy reports · 2020
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Single-session laparoscopic cystectomy and nephroureterectomy.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2013
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

J RassweilerUrologische Klinik Klinkum Heilbronn, Akademisches Lehrkrankenhaus der Universität Heidelberg, Am Gesundbrunnen 20, 74074 Heilbronn, Deutschland. jens.rassweiler@slk-kliniken.de
K Godin
A S Goezen
D Kusche
P Chlosta
F Gaboardi
C C Abbou
R van Velthoven

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although the technical feasibility of laparoscopic radical cystectomy (LRC) has been proven and the procedure has been accepted in the EAU guidelines 2011 as a valid alternative, its actual position has to be determined. On the one hand the advantages of LRC (less blood loss, lower transfusion rates, shorter analgesia time) have been proven in retrospective studies; however, the technical difficulties of purely laparoscopic urinary diversion result in very long operating times and in cases of a laparoscopic-assisted creation of a neobladder, the question of the advantage of this approach remains doubtful. Despite case reports of port metastases and peritoneal carcinosis following laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical cystectomy, there is no difference in terms of oncological long-term data (up to 10 years) between laparoscopy and open surgery performed at centres of excellence. Evidently, the curative options for the patients do not depend on the type of surgery (open versus minimally invasive) but on the efficacy of adjuvant treatment strategies (polychemotherapy). Currently it is believed that LRC should be considered for patients with low risk of progression (pT1-2). The final position of laparoscopic radical cystectomy can only be evaluated in a multicentric randomized controlled trial.

Indexed as

CystectomyHumansLaparoscopyMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresPlastic Surgery ProceduresRoboticsSurgery, Computer-Assisted

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.