Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31114462›Full record

ArticleCurrent urology2019

Peri-Operative Outcomes after Open and Robot-Assisted Radical Cystectomy by Using an Advanced Bipolar Seal and Cut Technology (Caiman®): A Prospective, Comparative, and Multi-Institutional Study.

Marco Borghesi, Riccardo Schiavina, Alessandro Antonelli, Carlo Buizza, Antonio Celia, Paolo Parma, Bernardino De Concilio, Francesco Mengoni, Daniele Romagnoli, Giacomo Saraceni and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current urology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Bladder Cancer at the time of COVID-19 Outbreak.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology · 2020
    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

12 authors.

Marco BorghesiDepartment of Urology, University of Bologna, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna.
Riccardo SchiavinaDepartment of Urology, University of Bologna, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna.
Alessandro AntonelliDepartment of Urology, University of Brescia, Spedali Civili, Brescia.
Carlo BuizzaDepartment of Urology, Ospedale di Circolo, Busto Arsizio.
Antonio CeliaDepartment of Urology, San Bassiano Hospital, Bassano del Grappa.
Paolo ParmaDepartment of Urology, Carlo Poma Hospital, Mantova.
Bernardino De ConcilioDepartment of Urology, San Bassiano Hospital, Bassano del Grappa.
Francesco MengoniDepartment of Urology, University of Bologna, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna.
Daniele RomagnoliDepartment of Urology, University of Bologna, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna.
Giacomo SaraceniDepartment of Urology, University of Bologna, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna.
Eugenio BrunocillaDepartment of Urology, University of Bologna, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna.
Angelo PorrecaDepartment of Urology, Policlinino Abano Terme, Abano Terme, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo report and compare the peri-operative outcomes of patients undergoing open (ORC) and robotic-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) for bladder cancer performed with a radiofrequency seal and cut device (Caiman®). MATERIALS AND

methodsData of patients undergoing ORC or RARC between January 2015 and March 2016 at 6 Italian institutions were prospectively recorded and analyzed. Thirty-and 90-day complications were stratified according to the Martin's criteria and graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. Data on operative time, blood loss, transfusion rate, complications, and length of stay were evaluated and compared between the ORC and RARC groups.

resultsThirty-three (66%) and 17 (34%) patients were treated with ORC and RARC, respectively. The median age was 72 (64-78) years. Overall operative time was longer in RARC compared to ORC (389 ± 80.1 vs. 242 ± 62.2 min, p < 0.001), while the estimated blood loss during cystectomy was higher after ORC (370 ± 126.8 vs. 243.3 ± 201.6 ml, p = 0.03). The transfusion rate was significantly higher in the ORC compared to RARC (24.2 vs. 5.9%, p = 0.04). Eight (19%) and 7 (16.7%) patients experienced 30- and 90-day post-operative complications, with no significant difference between ORC and RARC. Length of stay was significantly shorter in RARC group (median 7 vs. 14 days, p < 0.001).

conclusionOpen and robot-assisted procedures were safely performed by using a new advanced bipolar seal and cut technology (Caiman®). RARC demonstrated to be superior to ORC in terms of bleeding, transfusion rates and length of hospital stay, despite longer operative time.

Indexed as

Bladder cancerOpen radical cystectomyRobot-assisted radical cystectomySealing device

Identifiers

PMID31114462
PMCPMC6504802

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.