Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36636308›Full record

ArticleEuropean urology open science2023

Red Out: Bleeding During Robotic Retroperitoneal Lymph Node Dissection and Strategies To Manage It.

Fairleigh Reeves, Natalie George, Ben Challacombe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European urology open science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

3 authors.

Fairleigh ReevesThe Urology Centre, Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Natalie GeorgeThe Urology Centre, Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Ben ChallacombeThe Urology Centre, Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection is emerging as an attractive minimally invasive technique to remove residual and recurrent retroperitoneal masses in patients with germ cell malignancies. It has huge potential benefits for patients in terms of lower rates of blood loss, ileus, postoperative pain, and scarring, and faster return to full activity. Inadvertent injury to the great vessels, lumbar tributaries, and other vessels is not uncommon and requires a calm but strategic management response. A thorough knowledge of the standard anatomy, specific pathology, and anatomic variations will help robotic surgeons in managing intraoperative haemorrhage. We describe the anatomy of the retroperitoneal vessels, surgical case selection, and the technical and nontechnical skills essential for success in this complex and high-risk procedure. Patient summary: Robot-assisted surgical removal of lymph nodes from the area behind the abdominal cavity is a complex operation that has minimal bleeding if all goes well. However, as it involves operating on the major abdominal blood vessels, there is a risk of life-threatening bleeding that the operating team must be able to rapidly control. Effective teamwork and a range of advanced technical skills are required to respond to any serious bleeding.

Indexed as

BleedingRetroperitoneal lymph node dissectionRoboticSurgical techniqueTestis cancer

Identifiers

PMID36636308
PMCPMC9829689

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.