ArticleBMC urology2019
Robot-assisted laparoscopic antegrade versus open inguinal lymphadenectomy: a retrospective controlled study.
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 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- A focused systematic review and meta-analysis of robot-assisted inguinal lymphadenectomy versus open inguinal lymph node dissection in penile cancer.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Robotic surgery in comparison to the open and laparoscopic approaches in the field of urology: a systematic review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Penile cancer and lymph node management: a call for standardization.International urology and nephrology · 2026Review
- Review
- Skin Flap Necrosis in Inguinal Lymph Node Dissection.Indian journal of surgical oncology · 2024Article
- Article
- Video-endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy (VEIL) oncological and surgical benefits compared to open inguinal lymph node dissection (ILND).Journal of men's health · 2024Article
- Comparison of antegrade robotic assisted VS laparoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy for penile cancer.BMC surgery · 2023Article
- "Light green up": Indocyanine Green Fluorescence Imaging-guided Robotic Bilateral Inguinal Lymphadenectomy by the Hypogastric Subcutaneous Approach for Penile Cancer.European urology open science · 2022Article
- Minimal invasive approaches in lymph node management of carcinoma of penis: A review.Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of IndiaReview
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo investigate the surgical methods and clinical results of robot-assisted laparoscopic antegrade inguinal lymphadenectomy.
methodsA retrospective study was performed on clinical data from 19 patients with penile cancer admitted from March 2013 to October 2017. Among them, nine patients underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic antegrade inguinal lymphadenectomy (robot-assisted group) and 10 patients underwent open inguinal lymphadenectomy (open group). In the robot-assisted group, preoperative preparation, patient position, robot placement, design of operating channel and establishment of operating space are described. Key surgical procedures and techniques are also summarized. In addition, the number of lymph nodes removed, postoperative complications and follow-up in both groups were statistically analyzed.
resultsFor the 9 patients in the robot-assisted group, surgery was successfully accomplished at 17 sides without intraoperative conversion to open surgery. The surgery time for each side was 45~90 min using laparoscope with an average of 68.5 ± 13.69 min/side. The intraoperative blood loss was estimated to be < 10 ml/side, and the number of removed lymph nodes was not significantly different from that of the open group (12 ± 4.2/side vs.11 ± 5.8/side, P = 0.84). There were no postoperative complications such as skin necrosis, delayed wound healing and cellulitis in the robot-assisted group. Skin-related complications occurred in 9 (45%) of the 20 sides in the open group. During a median follow-up of 25 months in robot-assisted group and 52.5 mouths in open group, was not significantly different there were no statistical differences in recurrence-free survival between the groups (75% vs 60%, p = 0.536).
conclusionRobot-assisted laparoscopic antegrade inguinal lymphadenectomy achieved the desired surgical outcomes with fewer intraoperative and postoperative complications. The robotic arms of the surgical system were placed between the lower limbs of each patient. There was no need to re-position the robotic arms during bilateral inguinal lymphadenectomy. This simplified the procedure and reduced the use of trocars. If necessary, pelvic lymphadenectomy could be performed simultaneously using the original trocar position.
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.