ArticleBMC urology2021
Three-port approach vs standard laparoscopic radical cystectomy with an ileal conduit: a single-centre retrospective study.
Article in BMC urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fast-track surgery with three-port versus conventional perioperative management of bladder cancer associated laparoscopic radical cystectomy and Ileal conduit diversion: Chinese experience.World journal of surgical oncology · 2024Article
- Robot-assisted pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: initial experience with the novel avatera system.World journal of urology · 2023Article
- The feasibility of robot-assisted radical cystectomy: an experimental study.World journal of urology · 2023Article
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
backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the effect of the three-port approach and conventional five-port laparoscopic radical cystectomy (LRC) with an ileal conduit.
methodsEighty-four patients, who were diagnosed with high-risk non-muscle-invasive and muscle-invasive bladder carcinoma and underwent LRC with an ileal conduit between January 2018 and April 2020, were retrospectively evaluated. Thirty and fifty-four patients respectively underwent the three-port approach and five-port LRC. Clinical characteristics, pathological data, perioperative outcomes, and follow-up data were analysed.
resultsThere were no differences in perioperatively surgical outcome, including pathology type, prostate adenocarcinoma incidence, tumour staging, and postoperative creatinine levels between the two groups. The operative time (271.3 ± 24.03 vs. 279.57 ± 48.47 min, P = 0.299), estimated blood loss (65 vs. 90 mL, P = 0.352), time to passage of flatus (8 vs. 10 days, P = 0.084), and duration of hospitalisation post-surgery (11 vs. 12 days, P = 0.922) were no clear difference between both groups. Compared with the five-port group, the three-port LRC group was related to lower inpatient costs (12 453 vs. 14 134 $, P = 0.021). Our follow-up results indicated that the rate of postoperative complications, 90-day mortality, and the oncological outcome did not show meaningful differences between these two groups.
conclusionsThree-port LRC with an ileal conduit is technically safe and feasible for the treatment of bladder cancer. On comparing the three-port LRC with the five-port LRC, our technique does not increase the rate of short-term and long-term complications and tumour recurrence, but the treatment costs of the former were reduced.
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.