ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2014
Trans- and extraperitoneal retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND) in the treatment for nonseminomatous germ cell testicular tumors (NSGCT): a single Chinese center's retrospective analysis.
Article in International urology and nephrology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the role of two different approaches to perform laparoscopic RPLND: transperitoneal laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (TL-RPLND) and extraperitoneal laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (EL-RPLND). MATERIALS AND
methodsBetween February 2003 and April 2013, 39 patients with nonseminomatous germ cell testicular tumors were treated by RPLND in our center. Twenty-one patients had TL-RPLND, and 18 patients had EL-RPLND. We performed a comprehensive retrospective study comparing TL-RPLND and EL-RPLND. Certain parameters, including operative time, estimated blood loss, perioperative complications, resected lymph nodes, postoperative intestinal function recovery time, ejaculation, and postoperative tumor markers, were abstracted and compared.
resultsIn the EL-RPLND and TL-RPLND groups, the operation times were 178 ± 31 and 207 ± 25 min; the amounts of estimated blood loss were 87 ± 26 and 111 ± 21 ml; the postoperative intestinal function recovery times were 1.2 ± 0.7 and 2.4 ± 0.6 days; the postoperative hospital stays were 5.8 ± 1.1 and 5.5 ± 1.4 days; and the numbers of resected lymph nodes were 16.2 ± 1.5 and 15.8 ± 1.6, respectively. No conversion from laparoscopic to open surgery occurred. No patient in either group received an intraoperative blood transfusion. Overall, two patients developed postoperative fever, and one developed abdominal distension. After a median follow-up of 45 months, no regional relapse or metastases occurred, but 4 patients at clinical stage II were treated successfully by three cycles of platinum-based postoperative chemotherapy. Currently, all patients show no evidence of disease.
conclusionOur results demonstrate that EL-RPLND was superior to the transperitoneal approach in terms of the operation time, estimated blood loss, and postoperative intestinal function recovery time, whereas no differences were observed in the number of lymph nodes resected. EL-RPLND was demonstrated to be safe and feasible, with satisfactory clinical outcomes when performed by experienced laparoscopic surgeons. Larger cohorts of patients with longer term follow-up are needed for further studies to determine the role of different approaches to L-RPLND.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.