Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37332060›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2023

Comparison of laparoscopic, robotic, and open retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for non-seminomatous germ cell tumor: a single-center retrospective cohort study.

Juntao Lin, Zhenghui Hu, Shihan Huang, Bohua Shen, Shuo Wang, Jianjun Yu, Ping Wang, Xiaodong Jin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of urology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Current Treatment Patterns and Outcomes of Sex Cord Stromal Tumor Patients in Japan.International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association · 2026
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

8 authors.

Juntao LinDepartment of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, 310003, Zhejiang, People's Republic of China.
Zhenghui HuDepartment of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, 310003, Zhejiang, People's Republic of China.
Shihan HuangDepartment of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, 310003, Zhejiang, People's Republic of China.
Bohua ShenDepartment of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, 310003, Zhejiang, People's Republic of China.
Shuo WangDepartment of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, 310003, Zhejiang, People's Republic of China.
Jianjun YuDepartment of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, 310003, Zhejiang, People's Republic of China.
Ping WangDepartment of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, 310003, Zhejiang, People's Republic of China. wpyyy@zju.edu.cn.
Xiaodong JinDepartment of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, 310003, Zhejiang, People's Republic of China. xiaodong-jin@zju.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2734-3882

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare the perioperative outcomes of L-RPLND, R-RPLND and O-RPLND, and determine which one can be the mainstream option.

methodsWe retrospectively reviewed medical records of 47 patients undergoing primary RPLND by three different surgical techniques for stage I-II NSGCT between July 2011 and April 2022 at our center. Standard open and laparoscopic RPLND was performed with usual equipment, and robotic RPLND was operated with da Vinci Si system.

resultsForty-seven patients underwent RPLND during 2011-2022, and 26 (55.3%) of them received L-RPLND, 14 (29.8%) were operated with robot, while 7 (14.9%) were performed O-RPLND. The median follow-up was 48.0 months, 48.0 months, and 60.0 months, respectively. The oncological outcomes were comparable among all groups. In L-RPLND group, there were 8 (30.8%) cases of low grade (Clavien I-II) complications, and 3 (11.5%) cases of high-grade (Clavien III-IV) complications. In R-RPLND group, one (7.1%) low-grade complication and four (28.6%) high-grade complications were observed. In O-RPLND group, there were 2 (28.5%) cases of low-grade complications and one case (14.2%) of high-grade one. The operation duration of L-RPLND was the shortest. In O-RPLND group, the number of positive lymph nodes were higher than other two groups. Patients undergoing open surgery had lower (p < 0.05) red blood cell count, hemoglobin level, and higher (p < 0.05) estimated blood loss, white blood cell count than those receiving either laparoscopic or robotic surgery.

conclusionAll three surgical techniques are comparable in safety, oncological, andrological, and reproductive outcomes under the circumstance of not using primary chemotherapy. L-RPLND might be the most cost-effective option.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyNeoplasms, Germ Cell and EmbryonalRoboticsRobotic Surgical ProceduresTesticular NeoplasmsHumansLymph Node ExcisionMaleRetroperitoneal SpaceRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeLaparoscopic surgeryOpen surgeryRetroperitoneal lymph node dissectionRobotic SurgeryTesticular cancer

Identifiers

PMID37332060
PMCPMC10352171

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.