Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31049657›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2020

Experience with detrusorotomy in children by open and robotic approach.

Ramnath Subramaniam

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of urology, 2020. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
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

1 author.

Ramnath SubramaniamLeeds General Infirmary, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Affiliated to University of Leeds, Level F Martin Wing, Leeds, LS1 3EX, UK. R.Subramaniam@leeds.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8710-3579

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo present the author's experience with detrusorotomy (DM) for refractory detrusor overactivity (RDO) with open and robotic approach.

methodsChildren who underwent DM for RDO in a single surgeon series since 2012 were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Those who completed the defined strict bladder cycling regime postoperatively were included in this report excluding those who failed the bladder cycling regime.

resultsTen children (M7: F3) were included in this report, six open and four robotic. All procedures were completed with no conversion to open in the robotic group. There were no intra or postoperative complications from the procedures. Duration of procedure was lower in robotic group (125 min) vs the open group at (208 min). Hospital stay was also lower in the robotic group (2.7 days) compared to the open group (5.6 days). All children in open group had concomitant Mitrofanoff channel created for bladder drainage. One child in robotic group had concomitant Mitrofanoff channel during DM. Median follow-up is longer at 54 months (31-82) in open group compared to 14 months (5-21). All children are clinically well with safe upper tracts on US scan in both series. Estimated % change in bladder capacity is similar in both groups at 140 (90-200) and 126 (80-200) for open and robotic groups, respectively.

conclusionsDM as an extension of medical treatment for RDO can be performed safely and is effective in children. Preliminary experience with robotic approach to DM is promising with reduced duration of procedure and hospital stay.

Indexed as

Robotic Surgical ProceduresAdolescentChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansMaleProspective StudiesUrinary BladderUrinary Bladder, OveractiveUrologic Surgical ProceduresAutoaugmentationChildrenDetrusorotomyRobotic

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.