ArticleBMC urology2022
A propensity score matching study on robot-assisted radical cystectomy for older patients: comparison of intracorporeal ileal conduit and cutaneous ureterostomy.
Article in BMC urology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- A review and meta-analysis: comparing the efficacy of robot-assisted and open radical cystectomy in elderly bladder cancer patients.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Single-Stoma Cutaneous Ureterostomy After Radical Cystectomy: A Contemporary Narrative Review.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Review
- Robot-Assisted Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Radical Cystectomy in a Multicenter Cohort Study: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Images in urology - Novel reconstruction using a cutaneous transureterostomy diversion during robot-assisted radical cystectomy in a patient with crossed fused renal ectopia.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2025Article
- Retroperitoneal cutaneous ureterostomy following radical cystectomy: A multicenter comparative study of robotic versus open surgery.International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association · 2024Article
- Complete retroperitoneal cutaneous ureterostomy with robot-assisted radical cystectomy.IJU case reports · 2024Article
- Robotic-assisted radical cystectomy with cutaneous ureterostomies: a contemporary multicenter analysis.World journal of urology · 2024Article
- Postoperative complications and determinant of selecting non intracorporeal urinary diversion in patients undergoing robot-assisted radical cystectomy: an initial experience.Translational cancer research · 2024Article
- Comparison of long-term outcomes between ileal conduit and transuretero-cutaneostomy urinary diversion after radical cystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology · 2024Article
- Efficacy and safety of radical cystectomy with ileal conduit for muscle-invasive bladder cancer in the elderly: a multicenter retrospective study.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Radical Cystectomy with Elective Indication to Cutaneous Ureterostomy: Single-Center Comparative Analysis Between Open and Robotic Surgery in Frail Patients.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRobot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) and intracorporeal urinary diversion are less invasive than conventional procedures. However, for older patients, cutaneous ureterostomy (CUS) may be preferred because urinary diversion using the intestine has a high incidence of perioperative complications and is highly invasive. The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of intracorporeal ileal conduit (ICIC) compared with CUS in patients aged 75 years or older who underwent RARC.
methodsFrom October 2014 to December 2021, 82 patients aged 75 years or older who underwent RARC at Tokushima University Hospital, Tokushima Prefectural Central Hospital, or Ehime Prefectural Central Hospital were retrospectively reviewed. Of these, 52 and 25 patients who underwent ICIC and CUS, respectively, were included. After adjusting the patients' characteristics using propensity score-matching, surgical results and prognoses were retrospectively compared. The propensity score was based on age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status Scale (ECOG-PS), American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification (ASA-PS), clinical tumor stage, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
resultsThe median age was lower in the ICIC group compared with the CUS group, and the proportion of high-risk cases (ECOG-PS ≥ 2 or ASA-PS ≥ 3) did not differ. The median operation time was longer in the ICIC group, and estimated blood loss was higher, compared with the CUS group. There were no significant differences in the incidence of complications within the first 30 postoperative days, incidence of complications 30-90 days after surgery, 2-year overall survival, 2-year cancer-specific survival, and 2-year recurrence-free survival. The stent-free rate was significantly lower in the CUS group than that in the ICIC group.
conclusionIn older patients, the ICIC group showed non-inferior surgical and oncological outcomes compared with the CUS group. Urinary diversion following RARC in older patients should be carefully selected by considering not only the age but also the general condition (including comorbidities) of the patient.
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.