ReviewTranslational andrology and urology2021
Technical management of inguinal lymph-nodes in penile cancer: open versus minimal invasive.
Review in Translational andrology and urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Moving towards standardized outcomes in penile cancer and inguinal lymph node dissections.Nature reviews. Urology · 2026Article
- Video-endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy (VEIL) oncological and surgical benefits compared to open inguinal lymph node dissection (ILND).Journal of men's health · 2024Article
- Inguinal lymphadenectomy in penile cancer patients: a comparison between open and video endoscopic approach in a multicenter setting.Journal of basic and clinical physiology and pharmacology · 2023Article
- Article
- Combined Reporting of Surgical Quality and Cancer Control after Surgical Treatment for Penile Tumors with Inguinal Lymph Node Dissection: TheCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Article
- "Light green up": Indocyanine Green Fluorescence Imaging-guided Robotic Bilateral Inguinal Lymphadenectomy by the Hypogastric Subcutaneous Approach for Penile Cancer.European urology open science · 2022Article
- Global research trends in penile cancer: Bibliometric and visualized analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Inguinal lymphadenectomy (ILND) remains the standard of care for patients with invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the penis, dictating patient prognosis, adjuvant therapies, and surveillance strategies. Importantly the performance of an ILND has been shown to improve cancer-specific outcomes, providing a modifiable factor for patients with an aggressive malignancy. Surprisingly, the procedure remains underutilized, mainly due to the high surgical morbidity associated with the procedure. The open lymphadenectomy technique has undergone several modifications over the last 30 years to minimize its associated surgical morbidity, but wound-related complications remain significant. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) techniques have been recently introduced to help mitigate wound-related complications associated with open lymphadenectomy, with promising results. In this review, we highlight the importance of ILND, present a detail review of the surgical and oncological outcomes associated with open, laparoscopic and robotic ILND for patients with penile cancer.
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.