Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33610186›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of surgical oncology2021

Comparison of open and intracorporeal modified ureterosigmoidostomy (Mainz II) after laparoscopic radical cystectomy with bladder cancer.

Duo Zheng, Junyao Liu, Gongjin Wu, Shujun Yang, Chuang Luo, Tianci Du, Yao Luo, Junsheng Bao, Junqiang Tian, Zhiping Wang and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of surgical oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Duo Zheng *Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, Key Laboratory of Urological Diseases of Gansu Province, Lanzhou University Second Hospital, No.82 Cui Ying Gate, Cheng guan District, Lanzhou, 730030, Gansu, China.
Junyao Liu *Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, Key Laboratory of Urological Diseases of Gansu Province, Lanzhou University Second Hospital, No.82 Cui Ying Gate, Cheng guan District, Lanzhou, 730030, Gansu, China.
Gongjin WuDepartment of Urology, Institute of Urology, Key Laboratory of Urological Diseases of Gansu Province, Lanzhou University Second Hospital, No.82 Cui Ying Gate, Cheng guan District, Lanzhou, 730030, Gansu, China.
Shujun YangDepartment of Urology, Institute of Urology, Key Laboratory of Urological Diseases of Gansu Province, Lanzhou University Second Hospital, No.82 Cui Ying Gate, Cheng guan District, Lanzhou, 730030, Gansu, China.
Chuang LuoDepartment of Urology, Institute of Urology, Key Laboratory of Urological Diseases of Gansu Province, Lanzhou University Second Hospital, No.82 Cui Ying Gate, Cheng guan District, Lanzhou, 730030, Gansu, China.
Tianci DuDepartment of Urology, Institute of Urology, Key Laboratory of Urological Diseases of Gansu Province, Lanzhou University Second Hospital, No.82 Cui Ying Gate, Cheng guan District, Lanzhou, 730030, Gansu, China.
Yao LuoDepartment of Urology, Institute of Urology, Key Laboratory of Urological Diseases of Gansu Province, Lanzhou University Second Hospital, No.82 Cui Ying Gate, Cheng guan District, Lanzhou, 730030, Gansu, China.
Junsheng BaoDepartment of Urology, Institute of Urology, Key Laboratory of Urological Diseases of Gansu Province, Lanzhou University Second Hospital, No.82 Cui Ying Gate, Cheng guan District, Lanzhou, 730030, Gansu, China.
Junqiang TianDepartment of Urology, Institute of Urology, Key Laboratory of Urological Diseases of Gansu Province, Lanzhou University Second Hospital, No.82 Cui Ying Gate, Cheng guan District, Lanzhou, 730030, Gansu, China.
Zhiping WangDepartment of Urology, Institute of Urology, Key Laboratory of Urological Diseases of Gansu Province, Lanzhou University Second Hospital, No.82 Cui Ying Gate, Cheng guan District, Lanzhou, 730030, Gansu, China.
Panfeng ShangDepartment of Urology, Institute of Urology, Key Laboratory of Urological Diseases of Gansu Province, Lanzhou University Second Hospital, No.82 Cui Ying Gate, Cheng guan District, Lanzhou, 730030, Gansu, China. shangpf@lzu.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2129-1129
Zhongjin YueDepartment of Urology, Institute of Urology, Key Laboratory of Urological Diseases of Gansu Province, Lanzhou University Second Hospital, No.82 Cui Ying Gate, Cheng guan District, Lanzhou, 730030, Gansu, China. yuezhongjin@sina.com.
Lanzhou University Second Hospital · CN

Funding

CuiYing Science and Technology Innovation plan project of Lanzhou University Second Hospital CY2017-BJ05Special fund project for doctoral training program of Lanzhou University Second Hospital YJS-BD-25The key research and development (R&D) projects of Gansu Province 17YF1FA126
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare perioperative and oncologic outcomes of open modified ureterosigmoidostomy urinary diversion (OMUUD) and intracorporeal modified ureterosigmoidostomy urinary diversion (IMUUD) following laparoscopic radical cystectomy (LRC). PATIENTS AND

methodsWe retrospectively reviewed our single institutional collected database patients undergoing LRC from October 2011 to October 2019. The perioperative characteristics were compared between OMUUD and IMUUD, and overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were evaluated by the Kaplan-Meier method.

resultsOverall, 84 patients were included. OMUUD and IMUUD were performed in 63 (75%) and 21 (25%) patients, respectively. IMUUD patients demonstrated shorter postoperative length of stay (16.24 ± 3.91 days vs. 18.98 ± 7.41 days, P = 0.033), similar operation time (498.57 ± 121.44 vs. 462.24 ± 99.71, P = 0.175), similar estimated blood loss [400 (200-475) ml vs. 400 (200-700) ml, P = 0.095], and similar overall complication rate within 30 days (19.05% vs. 25.40%, P = 0.848) and 90 days (23.81% vs. 17.46%, P = 0.748). Complete urinary control rate was 87.3% (55/63) in the OMUUD group. In IMUUD, the complete urinary control rate was 90.5% (19/21). There was no significant difference in OS (χ

conclusionIMUUD postoperative recovery is faster; other perioperative outcomes and oncology results are not significantly different with OMUUD. It is indicated that IMUUD can be utilized safely and effectively in the urinary diversion after LRC.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsUrinary DiversionCystectomyHumansPostoperative ComplicationsPrognosisRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeLaparoscopyMainz pouch IIRadical cystectomyUreterosigmoidostomyUrinary diversionUrothelial carcinoma of the bladder

Identifiers

PMID33610186
PMCPMC7897376
OpenAlexW3109316399

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.