ArticleUrology journal2021
Robotic versus Laparoscopic Retroperitoneal Lymph node Dissection for Clinical Stage I Non-seminomatous Germ Cell Tumor of Testis: A Comparative Analysis.
Article in Urology journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical efficacy and safety of robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Pooled it
- [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
- Lymph Node Dissection in Testicular Cancer: The State of the Art and Future Perspectives.Current oncology reports · 2024Review
- A single center study that evaluates the preclinical use of a newly developed software and moving bed system to facilitate the spontaneous excretion of residual fragments after primary stone treatment (RIRS or PCNL).World journal of urology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the treatment outcomes of robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (R-RPLND) versus laparoscopic RPLND (L-RPLND) for clinical stage I non-seminomatous germ cell testicular tumors (NSGCTs). MATERIALS AND
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed the data of patients with stage I NSGCTs who underwent robotic or laparoscopic RPLND between 2008 and 2017. Perioperative data and oncologic outcomes were reviewed and compared between the two groups. Progression-free survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival curves and compared between two groups.
resultsA total of 31 and 28 patients underwent R-RPLND and L-RPLND respectively. The preoperative characteristics of the patients were comparable in the two groups. Patients in R-RPLND group had significantly shorter median operative time (140 vs. 175 minutes, P < .001), a shorter median duration to surgical drain removal (2 vs. 4 days, P = .002) and a shorter median postoperative hospital stay (5 vs. 6 days, P = .001). There were no statistical differences in intra- and post-operative complication rate between the groups and the oncologic outcomes were similar in the two groups.
conclusionIn expert hands, R-RPLND and L-RPLND were comparable in oncological parameter and morbidity rate; R-RPLND showed superiority in operation duration, median days to surgical drain removal and postoperative hospital stay for stage I NSGCTs. Multicenter and randomized studies with good power of study and sufficient follow-up duration are required to validate our result.
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.