Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30620766›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Comparison of oncological and perioperative outcomes of open, laparoscopic, and robotic nephroureterectomy approaches in patients with non-metastatic upper-tract urothelial carcinoma.

Hakmin Lee, Hak Ju Kim, Sang Eun Lee, Sung Kyu Hong, Seok-Soo Byun

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05373966 (Delphi Consensus on Robotic Radical Nephroureterectomy Curriculum), which is not on this map. Cited by 38 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
8.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT05373966 completednot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Delphi Consensus on Robotic Radical Nephroureterectomy Curriculum

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity of Southern CaliforniaRan2022 to 2023Enrolled24ConditionsConsensus DevelopmentArmsDelphi Questionnaire
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Observational
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Hakmin LeeDepartment of Urology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea.
Hak Ju KimDepartment of Urology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea.
Sang Eun LeeDepartment of Urology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea.
Sung Kyu HongDepartment of Urology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea.
Seok-Soo ByunDepartment of Urology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-7979-9035
Seoul National University Bundang Hospital · KRSeoul National University · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo compare the oncological and perioperative outcomes of different nephroureterectomy approaches in patients with non-metastatic upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC).

methodsWe retrospectively analyzed the data of 422 patients who underwent open, laparoscopic, or robotic nephroureterectomy for non-metastatic UTUC. Perioperative and postoperative survival outcomes were compared using Kaplan-Meier analyses and Cox-proportional hazard models.

resultsOf the patients, 161, 137, and 124 were treated with an open, laparoscopic, and robotic approach, respectively. Laparoscopic and robotic approaches involved significantly less blood loss (p = 0.001), shorter hospital stay (p < 0.001), and longer operation time (p < 0.001) compared with the open approach. There were no significant differences in intraoperative complications (open, 8.1%; laparoscopic, 5.1%; robotic, 7.3%; p = 0.363) or early postoperative complications (open, 14.9%; laparoscopic, 14.6%; robotic, 13.7%; p = 0.880). The laparoscopic and robotic groups showed significantly less postoperative analgesic use (p = 0.015). The robotic group showed significantly longer progression-free, cancer-specific, and overall survivals than the open approach group on univariate Kaplan-Meier analysis, but surgery type was not significantly associated with survival outcomes per multivariate Cox proportional tests (all p-values > 0.05).

conclusionThe laparoscopic and robotic approaches yielded better perioperative outcomes, such as less intraoperative bleeding, shorter hospital stays, less analgesic usage, and non-inferior oncological outcomes, compared with the open approach. Further prospective studies are needed to compare these surgical techniques.

Indexed as

AgedCohort StudiesFemaleHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateKidney NeoplasmsLaparoscopyMaleMiddle AgedNephroureterectomyProportional Hazards ModelsRepublic of KoreaRetrospective StudiesRobotic Surgical ProceduresTreatment OutcomeUreteral Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID30620766
PMCPMC6324816
OpenAlexW2909754096

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.