Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33982173›Full record

ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2022

Robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for primary and post-chemotherapy testis cancer.

G J Nason, K Kuhathaas, L Anson-Cartwright, M A S Jewett, M O'Malley, J Sweet, A Hansen, P Bedard, P Chung, E Hahn and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Testicular cancer survivorship: Long-term toxicity and management.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2022
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

G J NasonDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, 610 University Avenue, Suite 3-130, Toronto, ON, M5G 1X5, Canada.
K KuhathaasDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, 610 University Avenue, Suite 3-130, Toronto, ON, M5G 1X5, Canada.
L Anson-CartwrightDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, 610 University Avenue, Suite 3-130, Toronto, ON, M5G 1X5, Canada.
M A S JewettDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, 610 University Avenue, Suite 3-130, Toronto, ON, M5G 1X5, Canada.
M O'MalleyDivision of Abdominal Imaging, Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
J SweetDepartment of Pathology and Lab Medicine, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
A HansenDivision of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada.
P BedardDivision of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada.
P ChungDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada.
E HahnDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada.
P WardeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada.
R J HamiltonDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, 610 University Avenue, Suite 3-130, Toronto, ON, M5G 1X5, Canada. rob.hamilton@uhn.ca.
Princess Margaret Cancer Centre · CAUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The role of retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND) in testicular cancer is well established in both the primary and post-chemotherapy setting. The aim of this study was to report our 2 years oncological outcomes of robotic RPLND. A retrospective review was performed of all patients undergoing robotic RPLND by a single surgeon at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre. Demographic, perioperative, and oncologic data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Between September 2014 and June 2020, 141 patients underwent an RPLND [33 (23.4%) were primary, 108 (76.6%) were post-chemotherapy]. 27 (19.1%) patients underwent a robotic bilateral template nerve-sparing RPLND. RPLND indication was primary (i.e. pre-chemotherapy) in 18 (66.7%), and post-chemotherapy in 9 (33.3%) patients. Stage at RPLND was 2A (n = 15, 55.6%), 2B (n = 9, 33.3%), 2C (n = 1, 3.7%) and 3 (n = 2, 7.4%). Median OR time (incision to closure) was 525 min and blood loss was 200 ml. Nerve sparing was performed in all but one case. Six (22.2%) adjuvant procedures were performed including two (7.4%) vascular repairs. Median length of stay was 2 days. Viable tumor was detected in 17 (63%) and teratoma in 9 (33.3%). Median follow-up was 31.3 months. No adjuvant chemotherapy was given. Three patients (11.1%) relapsed: 2 out-of-field and 1 with both in-field and out-of-field disease. Robotic RPLND can be performed safely. Long-term follow-up of series such as ours, enriched with patients with viable disease and/or teratoma, and not treated with adjuvant chemotherapy is required to ensure oncological outcomes are comparable to the open approach.

Indexed as

Neoplasms, Germ Cell and EmbryonalRobotic Surgical ProceduresTesticular NeoplasmsHumansLymph Node ExcisionMaleRetroperitoneal SpaceRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeGerm cell tumorRoboticRPLNDTestis cancer

Identifiers

PMID33982173
OpenAlexW3160545954

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.