SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2023
Clinical efficacy and safety of robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2023. 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robotic assisted versus non-robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- [Retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy in the treatment of testicular germ cell tumors-Is the robot-assisted technique superior to the open surgical approach?]Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Review
- Robotic Retroperitoneal Lymph Node Dissection for Testicular Cancer-First Experience and Learning Curve of a Single Surgeon.Cancers · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND) is an effective treatment for testicular tumors. In recent years, with the development of robotics, many urological procedures performed via standard laparoscopy have been replaced by robots. Our objective was to compare the safety and efficacy of robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (R-RPLND) versus Non-robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (NR-RPLND) in testicular cancer. Methods: Pubmed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched for literature on robotic surgery for testicular germ cell tumors up to April 2023. The statistical and sensitivity analyses were performed using Review Manager 5.3. Meta-analysis was performed to calculate mean difference (MD), odds ratio(OR), and 95% confidence interval (CI) effect indicators. Results: Eight studies with 3875 patients were finally included in this study, 453 with R-RPLND and 3422 with open retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (O-RPLND)/laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (L-RPLND). The results showed that R-RPLND had lower rates of intraoperative blood loss (MD = -436.39; 95% CI -707.60 to -165.19; P = 0.002), transfusion (OR = 0.06; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.26; P = 0.0001), total postoperative complication rates (OR = 0.39; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.70; P = 0.002), and length of stay (MD=-3.74; 95% CI -4.69 to -2.78; P<0.00001). In addition, there were no statistical differences between the two groups regarding perioperative and oncological outcomes regarding total operative time, the incidence of postoperative complications grade≥III, abnormal ejaculation rate, lymph node yield, and postoperative recurrence rate. Conclusions: The R-RPLND and O-RPLND/L-RPLND provide safe and effective retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer. Patients with R-RPLND have less intraoperative bleeding, shorter hospitalization period, fewer postoperative complications, and faster recovery. It should be considered a viable alternative to O-RPLND/L-RPLND. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, identifier CRD42023411696.
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.