Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36117820›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in surgery2022

Surgical outcome predictor analysis following hand-assisted or pure laparoscopic transperitoneal nephroureterectomy using the Taiwan upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma database.

Chih-Chun Kuo, Guang-Heng Chen, Chao-Hsiang Chang, Chao-Yuan Huang, Chung-Hsin Chen, Ching-Chia Li, Wen-Jeng Wu, Chih-Chin Yu, Chi-Wen Lo, Yung-Tai Chen and 13 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in surgery, 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 31% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

23 authors at 14 institutions in 1 country.

Chih-Chun KuoDepartment of Urology, Cardinal Tien Hospital, New Taipei City, Taiwan.
Guang-Heng ChenDepartment of Urology, China Medical University and Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan.
Chao-Hsiang ChangDepartment of Urology, China Medical University and Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan.
Chao-Yuan HuangDepartment of Urology, National Taiwan University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Chung-Hsin ChenDepartment of Urology, National Taiwan University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Ching-Chia LiDepartment of Urology, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Wen-Jeng WuDepartment of Urology, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Chih-Chin YuDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Taipei Tzu Chi Hospital, The Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation, New Taipei City, Taiwan.
Chi-Wen LoDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Taipei Tzu Chi Hospital, The Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation, New Taipei City, Taiwan.
Yung-Tai ChenDepartment of Urology, Taiwan Adventist Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Shin-Hong ChenDepartment of Urology, Taiwan Adventist Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Pai-Yu ChengDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Far-Eastern Memorial Hospital, New Taipei, Taiwan.
Thomas Y HsuehDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Taipei City Hospital Ren-Ai Branch, Taipei, Taiwan.
Allen W ChiuCollege of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Po-Han LinDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Taipei Tzu Chi Hospital, The Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation, New Taipei City, Taiwan.
Jen-Shu TsengDepartment of Urology, MacKay Memorial Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Jen-Tai LinDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Kaohsiung Veterans General Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Yuan-Hong JiangDepartment of Urology, Hualien Tzu Chi Hospital, Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation and Tzu Chi University, Hualien, Taiwan.
Chia-Chang WuDepartment of Urology, Shuang Ho Hospital, Taipei Medical University, New Taipei City, Taiwan.
Wei-Yu LinDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chia-Yi, Taiwan.
Hsu-Che HuangDepartment of Urology, Cardinal Tien Hospital, New Taipei City, Taiwan.
Han-Sun ChiangDepartment of Urology, Cardinal Tien Hospital, New Taipei City, Taiwan.
Bing-Juin ChiangDepartment of Urology, Cardinal Tien Hospital, New Taipei City, Taiwan.
National Taiwan University Hospital · TWNational Yang Ming Chiao Tung University · TWCardinal Tien Hospital · TWKaohsiung Medical University · TWTaipei Tzu Chi Hospital · TWTaiwan Adventist Hospital · TWTzu Chi University · TWChang Gung University · TWChina Medical University · TWFar Eastern Memorial Hospital · TWFu Jen Catholic University · TWKaohsiung Veterans General Hospital · TWNational Yang Ming Chiao Tung University · TWTaipei Medical University · TW

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Taiwan has a high incidence of upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC). This study aimed to compare the surgical outcomes following transperitoneal hand-assisted laparoscopic nephroureterectomy (TP-HALNU) and transperitoneal pure laparoscopic nephroureterectomy (TP-LNU) from the Taiwan nationwide UTUC collaboration database using different parameters, including surgical volumes. Materials and methods: The nationwide UTUC collaboration database includes 14 hospitals in Taiwan from the Taiwan Cancer Registry. We retrospectively reviewed the records of 622 patients who underwent laparoscopic nephroureterectomy between July 1988 and September 2020. In total, 322 patients who received TP-LNU or TP-HALNU were included in the final analysis. Clinical and pathological data and oncological outcomes were compared. Results: Of the 322 patients, 181 and 141 received TP-LNU and TP-HALNU, respectively. There were no differences in clinical and histopathological data between the two groups. No differences were observed in perioperative and postoperative complications. There were no significant differences in oncological outcomes between the two surgical approaches. In the multivariate analysis, the cohort showed that age ≥70 years, positive pathological lymph node metastasis, tumors located in the upper ureter, and male sex were predictive factors associated with an increased risk of adverse oncological outcomes. A surgical volume of ≥20 cases showed a trend toward favorable outcomes on cancer-specific survival [hazard ratio (HR) 0.154, Conclusion: Although different approaches to transperitoneal laparoscopic nephroureterectomy showed no significant differences in surgical outcomes, age, sex, lymph node metastasis, and tumor in the upper ureter in the following period were predictive factors for oncological outcomes. Higher surgical volume did not impact disease-free survival and bladder recurrence-free survival but was associated with improved overall survival and cancer-specific survival. Exploration of unknown influencing factors is warranted.

Indexed as

hand-assisted laparoscopic nephroureterectomylaparoscopic nephroureterectomyoncological outcomesurgical volumeupper urinary tract urothelial carcinomaurothelial carcinoma

Identifiers

PMID36117820
PMCPMC9475171
OpenAlexW4294325992

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.