ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2018
Surgical and pathological outcomes of robotic-assisted radical cystectomy for bladder cancer in the community setting.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Port-site metastasis and atypical recurrences after robotic-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC): an updated comprehensive and systematic review of current evidences.Journal of robotic surgery · 2020Pooled it
- Analysis of postoperative complications in bladder cancer patients.Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland) · 2024Article
- The current status of robot-assisted cystectomy.Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of IndiaReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robotic-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) with urinary diversion is commonly performed in community hospitals. While little data exist on RARC outcomes in this setting, community hospitals may improve access to care for bladder cancer patients. We conducted a retrospective review of 76 patients who underwent RARC between 2006 and 2016 by two robotic-trained surgeons in two local community hospitals. A total of 76 patients (60 males and 16 females; ages 46-89) underwent RARC with extended pelvic lymphadenectomy and urinary diversion (69 ileal conduits, 7 neobladders) for muscle-invasive bladder carcinoma (79%), recurrent high-grade carcinoma (17%), unresectable tumor (2%), or refractory gross hematuria from chemotherapy (2%). Median-estimated surgical blood loss (EBL) was 400 mL, and median operating time was 386 min. Transfusion rate was 22% and median length of hospital stay was 6 days. Our 90-day complication rate was 47%, with no mortalities in the 90-day post-operative period. The majority of complications (58%) were Clavien grade 1-2. We observed a significant difference in incidence of complications among patients receiving neobladder vs. ileal conduit (p = 0.002). On pathology, zero patients had positive bladder specimen margins. Among 28 patients with at least 3-year follow-up, overall survival was 85.7%, and among 9 patients with at least 5-year follow-up, overall survival was 100%. Contrary to some studies, our findings suggest similar short-term surgical and pathologic outcomes for RARC performed in the community hospital setting compared to high volume centers. We defined several criteria for low volume centers to effectively and safely perform RARC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28836105What 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.