Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31980875›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2020

The impact of extended pelvic lymph node dissection on the risk of hospital readmission within 180 days after robot assisted radical prostatectomy.

Marco Sebben, Alessandro Tafuri, Aliasger Shakir, Marco Pirozzi, Tania Processali, Riccardo Rizzetto, Nelia Amigoni, Leone Tiso, Mario De Michele, Andrea Panunzio and 8 more

Abstract read
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 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Pelvic lymph node dissection in high-risk prostate cancer.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology
    Review
  12. 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

18 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Marco Sebben *Department of Urology, University of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata Verona, Piazzale Stefani 1, 37126, Verona, Italy.
Alessandro Tafuri *Department of Urology, University of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata Verona, Piazzale Stefani 1, 37126, Verona, Italy.
Aliasger ShakirInstitute of Urology and Catherine and Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, University of Southern California (USC), Los Angeles, USA.
Marco PirozziDepartment of Urology, University of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata Verona, Piazzale Stefani 1, 37126, Verona, Italy.
Tania ProcessaliDepartment of Urology, University of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata Verona, Piazzale Stefani 1, 37126, Verona, Italy.
Riccardo RizzettoDepartment of Urology, University of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata Verona, Piazzale Stefani 1, 37126, Verona, Italy.
Nelia AmigoniDepartment of Urology, University of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata Verona, Piazzale Stefani 1, 37126, Verona, Italy.
Leone TisoDepartment of Urology, University of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata Verona, Piazzale Stefani 1, 37126, Verona, Italy.
Mario De MicheleDepartment of Urology, University of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata Verona, Piazzale Stefani 1, 37126, Verona, Italy.
Andrea PanunzioDepartment of Urology, University of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata Verona, Piazzale Stefani 1, 37126, Verona, Italy.
Clara CerratoDepartment of Urology, University of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata Verona, Piazzale Stefani 1, 37126, Verona, Italy.
Matteo BrunelliDepartment of Pathology, University of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata Verona, Verona, Italy.
Filippo MiglioriniDepartment of Urology, University of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata Verona, Piazzale Stefani 1, 37126, Verona, Italy.
Giovanni NovellaDepartment of Urology, University of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata Verona, Piazzale Stefani 1, 37126, Verona, Italy.
Vincenzo De MarcoDepartment of Urology, University of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata Verona, Piazzale Stefani 1, 37126, Verona, Italy.
Salvatore SiracusanoDepartment of Urology, University of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata Verona, Piazzale Stefani 1, 37126, Verona, Italy.
Walter ArtibaniDepartment of Urology, University of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata Verona, Piazzale Stefani 1, 37126, Verona, Italy.
Antonio Benito PorcaroDepartment of Urology, University of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata Verona, Piazzale Stefani 1, 37126, Verona, Italy. drporcaro@yahoo.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7890-040X
University of Verona · ITUniversity of Southern California · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate the factors associated with the risk of hospital readmission after robot assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) with or without extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND) for prostate cancer (PCA) over a long term. MATERIALS AND

methodsThe risk of readmission was evaluated by clinical, pathological, and perioperative factors. Skilled and experienced surgeons performed the procedures. Patients were followed for complications and hospital readmission for a period of six months. The logistic regression model and Cox's proportional hazards assessed the association of factors with the risk of readmission.

resultsFrom January 2013 to December 2018, 890 patients underwent RARP; ePLND was performed in 495 of these patients. Hospital readmission was detected in 25 cases (2.8%); moreover, it was more frequent when RARP was performed with ePLND (4.4% of cases) than without (0.8% of patients). On the final multivariate model, ePLND was the only independent factor that was positively associated with the risk of hospital readmission (hazard ratio, HR = 5935; 95%CI 1777-19,831; p = 0.004).

conclusionsOver the long term after RARP for PCA, the risk of hospital readmission is associated with ePLND. In patients who underwent RARP and ePLND, 4.4% of them had a readmission, compared to RARP alone, in which only 0.8% of cases had a readmission. When ePLND is planned for staging pelvic lymph nodes, patients should be informed of the increased risk of hospital readmission.

Indexed as

Robotic Surgical ProceduresAgedHumansLymphatic MetastasisLymph Node ExcisionMaleMiddle AgedPatient ReadmissionPelvisProstatectomyProstatic NeoplasmsRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentTime FactorsComplicationsHospital readmissionProstate cancerRadical prostatectomyRobotic surgery

Identifiers

PMID31980875
OpenAlexW3001099882

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.