ArticleBMC surgery2021
Clinical outcome of laparoscopic versus robot-assisted radical cystectomy for patients with bladder cancer: a retrospective study.
Article in BMC surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative efficacy and safety of open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical cystectomy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Robotic-assisted versus standard laparoscopic radical cystectomy in bladder cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Pooled it
- Robot-assisted, laparoscopic and open radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyPooled it
- Oncologic outcomes of robot-assisted radical cystectomy for bladder carcinoma by urinary diversion type.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Robot-Assisted Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Radical Cystectomy in a Multicenter Cohort Study: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Pioneering AI-guided fluorescence-like navigation in urological surgery: real-time ureter segmentation during robot-assisted radical cystectomy using convolutional neural network.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Surgical field visualization and feasibility of accessory lung lobectomy using a pretied ligature loop via single incision thoracoscopy in canine cadavers.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Article
- Comparative Outcomes of Radical Cystectomy in Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cureus · 2023Review
- The feasibility of robot-assisted radical cystectomy: an experimental study.World journal of urology · 2023Article
- Comparative study on the clinical effect of preparing neobladder with different lengths of ileum.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
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWith the development of minimally invasive surgery technology, patients with bladder cancer are increasingly receiving laparoscopic radical cystectomy (LRC) or robotic-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) treatment. The main purpose of this study was to compare the long-term outcomes of bladder cancer patients treated with LRC versus RARC.
methodsA retrospective study to identify patients with clinical stage Ta/T1/Tis to T3 bladder cancer who underwent RARC or LRC has been performed. The perioperative outcome, recurrence, and overall survival (OS) of the two surgical methods were compared.
results218 patients were identified from March 2010 to December 2019 in our department, which including 82 (38%) patients who received LRC and 136 (62%) patients who received RARC. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of lymph node collection, lymph node positive rate, resection margin positive rate, and postoperative pathological staging. Compared with the LRC group, patients in the RARC group had a median estimated blood loss (180 vs. 250 ml; P = 0.02) and reduced complications at 90 days postoperatively (30.8% vs. 46.3%; P = 0.01). Recurrence, all-cause death, and cancer-specific death occurred in 77 (35%), 55 (25%), and 39 (18%) patients, respectively. The 5-year OS rate was 54.63% and 54.65% in the RARC and LRC group (P > 0.05). The 5-year cancer-specific survival (CSS) rate was 73.32% and 61.55% in RARC and LRC group (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in OS [hazard ratio (HR) 1.083, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.626-1.874; P = 0.78], and CSS (HR 0.789, 95%CI 0.411-1.515; P = 0.61) between two groups.
conclusionsBoth RARC and LRC were safe and effective with a similar long-term clinical outcomes. Moreover, RARC had significantly lower median estimated blood loss and reduced postoperative complications.
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.