ArticleAsian journal of urology2022
Laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection versus open retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer: A comparison of clinical and perioperative outcomes.
Article in Asian journal of urology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 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
- Article
- Clinical experience and outcomes of post chemotherapy midline extraperitoneal approach to retroperitoneal lymph node dissection.BMC urology · 2025Article
- Implementing High-Quality Retroperitoneal Lymph Node Dissection for Testicular Cancer at an Australian Tertiary Hospital: Challenging the Centralisation Paradigm in High-Need Areas.Research and reports in urology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study was performed to evaluate the clinical and perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (L-RPLND) and open retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (O-RPLND) performed by one surgeon at a single center. Methods: We evaluated 30 patients with stage IIA germ cell tumors who underwent retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (15 underwent L-RPLND and 15 underwent O-RPLND) at our institution between April 1, 2010 and March 31, 2018. The clinical parameters were compared between patients who underwent L-RPLND using the retroperitoneal approach and those who underwent O-RPLND using the transperitoneal approach. There were no significant differences in the background characteristics of the two groups except for the median follow-up duration (46 months for L-RPLND and 71 months for O-RPLND, Results: L-RPLND was associated with a shorter mean operative time (mean 222 min for L-RPLND Conclusion: Patients who underwent L-RPLND had more rapid recovery, and shorter hospital stay compared to those who underwent O-RPLND; complications were comparable between the two groups. L-RPLND is an efficient procedure with the benefits of minimally invasive surgery.
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.