SynthesisPloS one2015
Robotic versus open radical cystectomy: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
30 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Perioperative outcomes and safety of robotic vs open cystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 12,640 cases.World journal of urology · 2021Pooled it
- Minimally invasive versus open radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.The Journal of international medical research · 2019Pooled it
- Complications and health-related quality of life after robot-assisted versus open radical cystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of four RCTs.Systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Comparison of Complication and Readmission Rates Between Robot-Assisted and Open Radical Cystectomy: Results From the Randomized RAZOR Clinical Trial.The Journal of urology · 2025Trial
- Article
- Review
- Postoperative complications and hospital costs following open radical cystectomy: A retrospective study.PloS one · 2023Article
- Article
- Comparison of long-term outcomes in a 10-year experience of robotic cystectomy vs. open cystectomy.Journal of robotic surgery · 2021Article
- Article
- Robotic assisted radical cystectomy versus open radical cystectomy: a review of what we do and don't know.Translational andrology and urology · 2021Review
- Growing evidence for benefits of minimally invasive radical cystectomy.Translational andrology and urology · 2020Article
- Pathologic measures of quality compare favorably in patients undergoing robot-assisted radical cystectomy to open cystectomy cohorts: a National Cancer Database analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2020Article
- Peri-Operative Outcomes after Open and Robot-Assisted Radical Cystectomy by Using an Advanced Bipolar Seal and Cut Technology (Caiman®): A Prospective, Comparative, and Multi-Institutional Study.Current urology · 2019Article
- The interplay between adipose-derived stem cells and bladder cancer cells.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Surgical and pathological outcomes of robotic-assisted radical cystectomy for bladder cancer in the community setting.Journal of robotic surgery · 2018Article
- Robot-assisted laparoscopic implantation of brachytherapy catheters in bladder cancer recent interests and prospective.Translational andrology and urology · 2018Article
- Robot-assisted radical cystectomy - first Polish clinical outcomes.Central European journal of urology · 2018Article
- The impact of perioperative blood transfusion on survival outcomes in radical cystectomy patients.Translational andrology and urology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo critically review the currently available evidence of studies comparing robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) with open radical cystectomy (ORC).
methodsA comprehensive review of the literature from Pubmed, Web of Science and Scopus was performed in April 2014. All relevant studies comparing RARC with ORC were included for further screening. A pooled meta-analysis of all comparative studies was performed and publication bias was assessed by a funnel plot.
resultsNineteen studies were included for the analysis, including a total of 1779 patients (787 patients in the RARC group and 992 patients in the ORC group). Although RARC was associated with longer operative time (p <0.0001), patients in this group might benefit from significantly lower overall perioperative complication rates within 30 days and 90 days (p = 0.005 and 0.0002, respectively), more lymph node yields (p = 0.009), less estimated blood loss (p <0.00001), lower need for perioperative and intraoperative transfusions (p <0.0001 and <0.0001, respectively), and shorter postoperative length of stay (p = 0.0002). There was no difference between two groups regarding positive surgical margin rates (p = 0.19).
conclusionsRARC appears to be an efficient alternative to ORC with advantages of less perioperative complications, more lymph node yields, less estimated blood loss, lower need for transfusions, and shorter postoperative length of stay. Further studies should be performed to compare the long-term oncologic outcomes between RARC and ORC.
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.