ArticleInvestigative and clinical urology2022
Comparison of functional and oncological outcomes between uterus-sparing radical cystectomy and standard radical cystectomy in females: A retrospective study.
Article in Investigative and clinical urology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative evaluation of reproductive organ-preserving versus standard radical cystectomy in female: a meta-analysis and systematic review of perioperative, oncological, and functional outcomes.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Pooled it
- Clinical efficacy and safety of organ-sparing cystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.PeerJ · 2024Pooled it
- Management of surgical menopause in female patients with bladder cancer undergoing radical cystectomy.Nature reviews. Urology · 2026Review
- Clinical Predictive Factors for Reproductive Organ Involvement in Females with Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer: A Retrospective Review of Radical Cystectomy Cases from Two Tertiary Centers.Iranian journal of medical sciences · 2025Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to compare the functional and oncological outcomes of females who underwent uterus-sparing radical cystectomy (USRC) and standard radical cystectomy (SRC). MATERIALS AND
methodsBetween February 2009 and December 2020, 90 female patients who underwent radical cystectomy with urinary diversion were included in this study, comprising the USRC and SRC groups. Functional outcomes were assessed in 63 patients who only underwent radical cystectomy with neobladder formation. Questionnaire scores, clean intermittent catheterization (CIC) rate, and urinary continence rate were analyzed. Oncological outcomes were assessed in 86 patients, regardless of the urinary diversion type. Overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were compared.
resultsCIC rate was significantly lower in the USRC group than in the SRC group (14.7% vs. 48.0%; p=0.005). The continence rate was significantly higher in the USRC group than in the SRC group (85.3% vs. 40.0%; p=0.001). There were no significant differences in OS (p=0.890), CSS (p=0.700), or RFS (p=0.270) between the two groups. In multivariate analysis, uterine preservation did not significantly increase the hazard ratio (HR) of OS (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.18-2.11; p=0.450), CSS (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.22-4.40; p=0.990), or RFS (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.19-1.11; p=0.840).
conclusionsUSRC resulted in higher continence rates and lower CIC rates than SRC without negatively affecting oncological outcomes. Hence, with thorough deliberation, USRC should be considered for females undergoing radical cystectomy.
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.