ReviewAsian journal of urology2021
Robot-assisted retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy: The state of art.
Review in Asian journal of urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of Perioperative and Oncologic Outcomes Between Robotic and Open Retroperitoneal Lymph Node Dissection in Testicular Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Pooled it
- A meta-analysis of clinicopathologic features that predict necrosis or fibrosis at post-chemotherapy retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in individuals receiving treatment for non-seminoma germ cell tumours.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Pooled it
- Robot-assisted post-chemotherapy retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for metastatic non-seminomatous germ cell tumors using two distinct surgical approaches: A tertiary care experience.Asian journal of urology · 2026Article
- Robot-assisted retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in testicular cancer: state of the art and future perspectives.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Review
- The role of primary RPLND in clinical stage IIA/B testicular germ cell tumor: a narrative review.Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Review
- [Retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy in the treatment of testicular germ cell tumors-Is the robot-assisted technique superior to the open surgical approach?]Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Review
- Robotic Retroperitoneal Lymph Node Dissection for Testicular Cancer-First Experience and Learning Curve of a Single Surgeon.Cancers · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Robotic surgery in urology: Recent advances.Asian journal of urology · 2023Article
- Twenty Years' Experience in Retroperitoneal Lymph Node Dissection for Testicular Cancer in a Tertiary Referral Center.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Review
- Testicular tumors in the "elderly" population.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo perform a narrative review about the role of robot-assisted retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy (R-RPLND) in the management of testicular cancer.
methodsA PubMed search for all relevant publications regarding the R-RPLND series up until August 2019 was performed. The largest series were identified, and weighted means calculated for outcomes using the number of patients included in each study as the weighting factor.
resultsFifty-six articles of R-RPLND were identified and eight series with more than 10 patients in each were included. The weighted mean age was 31.12 years; primary and post chemotherapy R-RPLND were performed in 50.59% and 49.41% of patients. The clinical stage was I, II and III in 47.20%, 39.57% and 13.23% of patients. A modified R-RPLND template was used in 78.02% of patients, while 21.98% underwent bilateral full template. The weighted mean node yield, operative time and estimated blood loss were, respectively, 22.15 nodes, 277.35 min and 131.94 mL. The weighted mean length of hospital stay was 2 days and antegrade ejaculation was preserved in 92.12% of patients. Major post-operative complications (Clavien III or IV) occurred in 5.34%. Positive pathological nodes were detected in 24.54%, while the recurrence free survival was 95.77% with a follow-up of 21.81 months.
conclusionR-RPLND has proven to be a reproducible and safe approach in experienced centers; short-term oncologic outcomes are similar to the open approach with less morbidity and shorter convalescence related to its minimal invasiveness. However, longer follow-up and new trials comparing head-to-head both techniques are expected.
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.