ArticleTherapeutic advances in urology
Robot-assisted inguinal lymphadenectomy: preliminary experience and perioperative outcomes from an Italian referral center.
Article in Therapeutic advances in urology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Conventional Versus Videoscopic Inguinal Lymphadenectomy in Surgical Oncology: A Retrospective Observational Cohort Study.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Observational
- Article
- Comparison of antegrade robotic assisted VS laparoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy for penile cancer.BMC surgery · 2023Article
- Role of laparoscopy in the era of robotic surgery in urology in developing countries.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
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInguinal lymphadenectomy remains the gold standard for the treatment of inguinal lymph node metastases from penile carcinoma, melanoma, Merkel cell carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). This procedure is associated with significant complications. In order to reduce morbidity, minimally invasive approaches have been described. We report our preliminary experience with robot-assisted inguinal lymphadenectomies (RAIL).
methodsRAIL was performed according to the Sotelo technique. When indicated, a robot-assisted pelvic lymphadenectomy (RAPLND) was performed. We recorded age, sex, comorbidities, baseline oncologic diagnosis, operative time, hospital stay, lymph node yield, complications, time to drain removal, and oncologic outcomes.
resultsFrom December 2016 to February 2019, 13 patients underwent RAIL. Median age was 65 years (range: 31-85 years). Primary malignancy was melanoma in five patients, Merkel cell carcinoma in four, dermal duct tumor in one, penile cancer in two, and SCC in one. RAIL was monolateral in 12 cases and bilateral in 1 case. A total of 10 monolateral RAPLNDs were performed; median operative time was 279 min (range: 169-320). Median lymph nodes yield was 11 (range: 2-24) for monolateral RAIL and 9 for monolateral RAPLND (range 2-24). Median hospital stay was 4 days (range: 2-5). No procedure was converted to open. Median follow up was 16 months (range: 5-31). Five Clavien-Dindo grade I complications were recorded. Median time to drain removal was 32.5 days (range 7-65). Three recurrences and two cancer-related deaths were recorded.
conclusionsRAIL is feasible and associated with a short hospital stay, with little incidence of perioperative complications.
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.