Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31942458›Full record

ArticleInvestigative and clinical urology2020

Do patients benefit from total intracorporeal robotic radical cystectomy?: A comparative analysis with extracorporeal robotic radical cystectomy from a Korean multicenter study.

Ji Sung Shim, Tae Gyun Kwon, Koon Ho Rha, Young Goo Lee, Ji Youl Lee, Byong Chang Jeong, Jong Hyun Pyun, Sung Gu Kang, Seok Ho Kang

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Investigative and clinical urology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Robot-assisted radical cystectomy: Where we are in 2023.Investigative and clinical urology · 2023
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Your first-choice journal in urology.Investigative and clinical urology · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

9 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Ji Sung ShimDepartment of Urology, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-6745-1776
Tae Gyun KwonDepartment of Urology, Kyungpook National University College of Medicine, Daegu, Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-4390-0952
Koon Ho RhaDepartment of Urology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-8588-7584
Young Goo LeeDepartment of Urology, Hallym University Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-0339-7763
Ji Youl LeeDepartment of Urology, The Catholic University of Korea College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-6775-1157
Byong Chang JeongDepartment of Urology, Sungkyunkwan University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-5399-2184
Jong Hyun PyunDepartment of Urology, Sungkyunkwan University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-0265-6452
Sung Gu KangDepartment of Urology, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-1112-7077
Seok Ho KangDepartment of Urology, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-1524-5233
Korea University · KRSungkyunkwan University · KRCatholic University of Korea · KRHallym University Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital · KRKyungpook National University · KRYonsei University · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to compare complications, perioperative parameters, and oncologic outcomes between robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) with extracorporeal urinary diversion (ECUD) and RARC with intracorporeal urinary diversion (ICUD). Materials and Methods: Between 2007 and 2017, 362 patients who underwent RARC with ECUD or ICUD at multiple tertiary referral institutions were assessed. The primary endpoints were complication rates. The secondary outcomes were perioperative recovery parameters and oncological outcomes including estimated recurrence-free survival (RFS) and recurrence pattern between the 2 groups. Additionally, the complication rates of 2 expert surgeons with experience of >100 RARCs were analyzed. Results: The ICUD group showed lower overall, gastrointestinal, and genitourinary complications (p=0.001, p=0.036, and p=0.036, respectively) than the ECUD group. Concerning perioperative outcomes, the ICUD group had a significantly longer operation time (p=0.002), although recovery parameters such as time to flatus passage, oral intake, and length of hospital stay were significantly shorter in this group (p=0.001, p<0.001, and p<0.001, respectively). There was no difference in oncologic outcomes such as positive margin rate (p=0.944) and 2-year RFS (p=0.496), and in the recurrence pattern between groups. In the comparison of the expert surgeons' complication rates, the major and total complication rates did not show differences (p=0.814 and p=0.102, respectively) while the minor complication rates were lower in the ICUD group (p=0.058). Conclusions: This multi-institutional cohort study demonstrated the benefits of the ICUD approach, as indicated by lower complication rates and better recovery parameters, although the oncological results were similar to those of ECUD.

Indexed as

CystectomyPostoperative ComplicationsRobotic Surgical ProceduresCohort StudiesComparative Effectiveness ResearchFemaleHumansLength of StayMaleMargins of ExcisionMiddle AgedOperative TimeRepublic of KoreaSurvival AnalysisUrinary BladderUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsCystectomyRecurrenceRoboticsUrinary bladder neoplasmsUrinary diversion

Identifiers

PMID31942458
PMCPMC6946824
OpenAlexW2982880793

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.