ArticleInternational braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology
Laparoscopic Radical Cystectomy in the Elderly - Results of a Single Center LRC only Series.
Article in International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Radical cystectomy mortality in older patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BJU international · 2025Pooled it
- Laparoscopic radical cystectomy in octogenarians: analysis of a Japanese multicenter cohort.International journal of clinical oncology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare outcome of laparoscopic radical cystectomy (LRC) with ileal conduit in 22 elderly (≥75 years.) versus 51 younger (< 75 years.) patients. MATERIALS AND
methodsAnalysis of prospectively gathered data of a single institution LRC only series was performed. Selection bias for LRC versus non-surgical treatments was assessed with data retrieved from the Netherlands Cancer Registry.
resultsMedian age difference between LRC groups was 9.0 years (77.0 versus 68.0 years). Both groups had similar surgical indications, body mass index and gender distribution. Charlson Comorbidity Index score was 3 versus 4 in ≥50% of younger and elderly patients. Median operative time (340 versus 341 min) and estimated blood loss (< 500 versus >500mL) did not differ between groups. Median total hospital stay was 12.0 versus 14.0 days for younger and elderly patients. Grade I-II 90-d complication rate was higher for elderly patients (68 versus 43%, p=0.05). Grade III-V 90-d complication rate was equal for both groups (23 versus 29%, p=0.557). 90-d mortality rate was higher for elderly patients (14 versus 4%, p=0.157). Median follow-up was 40.0 months for younger and 57.0 months for elderly patients. Estimated overall and cancer-specific survival at 5years. was 46% versus 35% and 64% versus 64% for youn¬ger and elderly patients respectively.
conclusionsOur results suggest that LRC is feasible in elderly patients, where a non¬-surgical treatment is usually favoured.
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.