ArticleBMC urology2019
A pilot study to assess the safety and usefulness of combined transurethral endoscopic mucosal resection and en-bloc resection for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer.
Article in BMC urology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Process optimisation: spinal versus general anaesthesia for endourological surgery. A randomised, controlled trial and machine-learning approach.Anaesthesiology intensive therapy · 2024Trial
- Bipolar versus thulium-YAG laser en bloc resection of bladder tumors: a prospective randomized controlled trial.International urology and nephrology · 2026Article
- Application of needle electrodes inBladder (San Francisco, Calif.) · 2024Article
- En bloc transurethral resection of bladder tumors: A review of current techniques.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2022Review
- Review
- Transurethral resection of bladder tumour (TURBT).Translational andrology and urology · 2020Review
- Transurethral needle electrode resection and transurethral holmium laser resection of bladder cancer.World journal of surgical oncology · 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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTransurethral resection (TUR) is the standard operation used for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). Although most solid tumors are principally removed via single block resection without incising the mass, disruption of the lesion is unavoidable in traditional TUR. Furthermore, pathological diagnosis is often difficult due to heat-related denaturation of tissues in TUR. Although transurethral en-bloc resection is useful for judging tumor invasion, it is associated with a prolonged operative duration. We attempted to show the safety and usefulness of combined endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and en-bloc resection in NMIBC patients.
methodsWe investigated 39 patients with clinical NMIBC who were treated using our original EMR + en-bloc resection technique, which involved removal of the tumor mass that protruded from the mucosa, using a polypectomy snare similar to that used for EMR. The residual lesion was removed using en-bloc resection. The operative period, duration of hospitalization, and recurrence rates were compared with those of conventional TUR (n = 31).
resultsThe mean (standard deviation, range) time interval for EMR and total operative duration were 1.6 (1.1, 1-5) min and 18.3 (10.5, 3-48) min, respectively. The total operative duration was comparable to that of TUR (17.3 min, p = 0.691). The mean duration of catheterization in the EMR + en-bloc resection group (4.2 days) was also similar to that in the TUR group (3.7 days; p = 0.285). No severe complications were observed with EMR + en-bloc resection. The pathologists were able to determine tumor invasiveness with considerable certainty in all specimens obtained via the EMR + en-bloc procedure than via TUR, and the difference in the ease of diagnosis was statistically significant (p = 0.016). Recurrence rates were comparable (p = 0.662) between the EMR + en-bloc (15.4%) and TUR groups (19.4%).
conclusionsOur results demonstrated that the EMR + en-bloc resection technique is feasible, safe, and useful for treating patients with NMIBC. Furthermore, this technique helps provide a more accurate pathological diagnosis.
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.