ArticleDer Urologe. Ausg. A2012
[Radical cystectomy - pro laparoscopic].
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Single-session laparoscopic cystectomy and nephroureterectomy: is it real and useful choice of treatment or fiction?Journal of surgical case reports · 2021Article
- Laparoscopic radical cystectomy and nephroureterectomyMedicine and pharmacy reports · 2020Article
- The morbidity of laparoscopic radical cystectomy: analysis of postoperative complications in a multicenter cohort by the European Association of Urology (EAU)-Section of Uro-Technology.World journal of urology · 2016Article
- Single-session laparoscopic cystectomy and nephroureterectomy.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
22532364What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.