ArticleInvestigative and clinical urology2016
Advantage of urological experience with both transperitoneal and retroperitoneal laparoscopy in lymph node biopsy for malignant lymphoma diagnosis.
Article in Investigative and clinical urology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Computed Tomography Fluoroscopy-guided Core Needle Biopsy of Abdominal Para-aortic Lesions: A Retrospective Evaluation of the Diagnostic Yield and Safety.Interventional radiology (Higashimatsuyama-shi (Japan) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeLaparoscopic urologists are familiar with both transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches. That experience is an advantage when devising a strategy for intra-abdominal lymph node biopsy. We report the feasibility and effectiveness of laparoscopic biopsy using a urological laparoscopic technique for the treatment of patients with clinically suspected intra-abdominal lymphoma. MATERIALS AND
methodsFrom October 2010 to April 2015, a total of 22 patients underwent laparoscopic biopsy for suspected intra-abdominal lymphoma. We adopted a retroperitoneal approach for paraaortic or paracaval masses, whereas we used a transperitoneal approach for mesenteric, iliac, or obturator masses. Whenever possible, an entire node was removed; otherwise, the biopsy consisted of wedge resection sized at least 1 cm
resultsBiopsy specimens were obtained from the following lymph node sites: 10 paraaortic, 5 paracaval, 3 mesenteric, 2 obturator, 1 common iliac, and 1 perinephric fat. Laparoscopic lymph node biopsy was completed in all patients, and there were no conversions to open surgery. The median operating time was 97 minutes (range, 62-167 minutes). The estimated blood loss was <50 mL in all cases. Postoperatively, one patient (4.5%) had symptomatic chylous lymphocele that required surgical intervention. Precise diagnosis was established for all patients: malignant lymphoma in 20 patients and metastatic urothelial carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma of unknown origin in 1 patient each. All lymphomas could be fully subclassified.
conclusionsAppropriate use of the transperitoneal or retroperitoneal approach is safe and effective for laparoscopic lymph node biopsy in patients with suspected intra-abdominal lymphoma.
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.