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.
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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative outcomes of intracorporeal and extracorporeal urinary diversion in robotic cystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of intracorporeal versus extracorporeal urinary diversion after robotic-assisted radical cystectomy in elderly patients with malignancy.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Comparison of Extracorporeal and Intracorporeal Urinary Diversion after Robot-Assisted Radical Cystectomy for Bladder Cancer: A Meta-Analysis.American journal of men's healthPooled it
- Review
- Robot-assisted radical cystectomy: Where we are in 2023.Investigative and clinical urology · 2023Review
- Open vs. robot-assisted radical cystectomy with extracorporeal or intracorporeal urinary diversion for bladder cancer A pairwise meta-analysis of outcomes and a network meta-analysis of complications.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2023Article
- Extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical cystectomy with intracorporeal neobladder: a comparison with transperitoneal approach.World journal of surgical oncology · 2022Article
- Your first-choice journal in urology.Investigative and clinical urology · 2022Article
- Efficacy and safety of single port robotic radical prostatectomy and multiport robotic radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Translational andrology and urology · 2021Article
- Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal urinary diversion in robot-assisted radical cystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of clinical oncology · 2021Review
- Effect of intraoperative fluid volume on postoperative ileus after robot-assisted radical cystectomy.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Modified ileal conduit intracorporeally accomplished following laparoscopic radical cystectomy with enhanced recovery protocols: experience with 48 cases.Translational andrology and urology · 2021Article
- Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal urinary diversion after robot-assisted radical cystectomy: a pooled analysis.Gland surgery · 2021Article
- Improving safety in the performance of robotic urinary diversions: a narrative review.Therapeutic advances in urologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.