Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31720765›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2020

Robotic versus open radical cystectomy throughout the learning phase: insights from a real-life multicenter study.

Louis Lenfant, Riccardo Campi, Jérôme Parra, Vivien Graffeille, Alexandra Masson-Lecomte, Dimitri Vordos, Alexandre de La Taille, Mathieu Roumiguie, Marine Lesourd, Lionel Taksin and 6 more

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter Study
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 6 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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.

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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

16 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Louis LenfantSorbonne University, Hopital Pitié Salpétrière, Urology, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), Paris, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9852-4002
Riccardo CampiSorbonne University, Hopital Pitié Salpétrière, Urology, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), Paris, France.
Jérôme ParraSorbonne University, Hopital Pitié Salpétrière, Urology, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), Paris, France.
Vivien GraffeilleDepartment of Urology, Pontchaillou Hospital, CHU RENNES, Rennes, France.
Alexandra Masson-LecomteDepartment of Urology, Henri Mondor Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP) CHU Mondor, Faculté de Médecine, Créteil, France.
Dimitri VordosDepartment of Urology, Henri Mondor Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP) CHU Mondor, Faculté de Médecine, Créteil, France.
Alexandre de La TailleDepartment of Urology, Henri Mondor Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP) CHU Mondor, Faculté de Médecine, Créteil, France.
Mathieu RoumiguieDepartment of Urology, Andrology and Renal Transplantation, CHU Rangueil, Paul-Sabatier University, 1, av J Pouilhès, 31059, Toulouse Cedex, France.
Marine LesourdDepartment of Urology, Andrology and Renal Transplantation, CHU Rangueil, Paul-Sabatier University, 1, av J Pouilhès, 31059, Toulouse Cedex, France.
Lionel TaksinHôpital privé d'Antony, 1 rue Velpeau, 92160, Antony, France.
Vincent MisraïClinique Pasteur, 45 Avenue de Lombez, 31300, Toulouse, France.
Benjamin GrangerDepartment of Biostatistics, Groupe Hospitalo-Universitaire EST, Faculté de Médecine Pierre et Marie Curie, Pitié-Salpétrière Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), University Paris Sorbonne, Paris, France.
Guillaume PloussardDepartment of Urology, Clinique St Jean du Languedoc, Toulouse, France.
Christophe VaessenSorbonne University, Hopital Pitié Salpétrière, Urology, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), Paris, France.
Gregory VerhoestDepartment of Urology, Pontchaillou Hospital, CHU RENNES, Rennes, France.
Morgan RouprêtSorbonne University, Hopital Pitié Salpétrière, Urology, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), Paris, France. morgan.roupret@aphp.fr.
Sorbonne Université · FRAssistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris · FRHôpital Pontchaillou · FRUniversité Toulouse III - Paul Sabatier · FRClinique Pasteur · FRClinique Saint Jean Languedoc · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectivesRobot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) has been shown to be non-inferior to open radical cystectomy (ORC) for the treatment of bladder cancer (BC). However, most data on RARC come from high-volume surgeons at high-volume centers. The objective of the study was to compare perioperative and mid-term oncologic outcomes of RARC versus ORC in a real-life cohort of patients treated by surgeons starting their experience with RARC. MATERIALS AND

methodsData were prospectively collected from consecutive patients undergoing RARC and ORC at five referral Centers between 2010 and 2016 by five surgeons (one per center) with no prior experience in RARC. Patients with high-risk non-muscle-invasive or organ-confined muscle-invasive (T2N0M0) bladder cancer were considered for RARC. The main study endpoints were perioperative outcomes, postoperative surgical complications, and mid-term oncologic outcomes.

resultsOverall, 124 and 118 patients underwent RARC and ORC, respectively. Baseline patients' and tumors' characteristics were comparable between the two groups. Yet, the proportion of patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy was significantly higher in the RARC cohort. Median operative time was significantly higher, while median EBL, LOH, and transfusion rates were significantly lower after RARC. Median number of lymph nodes removed was significantly higher after RARC. All other histopathological outcomes, as well as the rate of early (< 30 days) and late postoperative complications, were comparable to ORC. At a median follow-up of 2 years, 29 (23%) and 41 (35%) patients developed disease recurrence (p = 0.05), while 20 (16%) and 37 (31%) died of bladder cancer (p = 0.005) after RARC and ORC, respectively.

conclusionsWith proper patient selection, RARC was non-inferior to ORC throughout the surgeons' learning phase. Yet, the observed differences in oncologic outcomes suggest selection bias toward adoption of RARC for patients with more favorable disease characteristics.

Indexed as

Robotic Surgical ProceduresAgedCystectomyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsComparative effectiveness researchCystectomyPostoperative complicationsRobotic surgical proceduresUrinary bladder neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID31720765
OpenAlexW2983968660

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.