Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38481673›Full record

ReviewBJUI compass2024

Robotic-assisted approaches to urachal carcinoma: A comprehensive systematic review of the safety and efficacy outcomes.

Caio Vinícius Suartz, Lucas Motta Martinez, Pedro Henrique Brito, Carlos Victori Neto, Maurício Dener Cordeiro, Luiz Antonio Assan Botelho, Fábio Pescarmona Gallucci, José Maurício Mota, William Carlos Nahas, Leopoldo Alves Ribeiro-Filho

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BJUI compass, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Urachal Carcinomas: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology
    Pooled it
  2. Clinical landscape of urachal carcinoma: a two-decade real-world study.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
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

10 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Caio Vinícius SuartzUrology Department, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, AP-HP. Centre Université Paris Cité Paris France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1364-5508
Lucas Motta MartinezDivision of Urology, Institute of Cancer of São Paulo University of São Paulo São Paulo Brazil.
Pedro Henrique BritoDivision of Urology, Institute of Cancer of São Paulo University of São Paulo São Paulo Brazil.
Carlos Victori NetoDivision of Urology, Institute of Cancer of São Paulo University of São Paulo São Paulo Brazil.
Maurício Dener CordeiroDivision of Urology, Institute of Cancer of São Paulo University of São Paulo São Paulo Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8439-3283
Luiz Antonio Assan BotelhoDivision of Urology, Institute of Cancer of São Paulo University of São Paulo São Paulo Brazil.
Fábio Pescarmona GallucciDivision of Urology, Institute of Cancer of São Paulo University of São Paulo São Paulo Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7434-113X
José Maurício MotaDivision of Urology, Institute of Cancer of São Paulo University of São Paulo São Paulo Brazil.
William Carlos NahasDivision of Urology, Institute of Cancer of São Paulo University of São Paulo São Paulo Brazil.
Leopoldo Alves Ribeiro-FilhoDivision of Urology, Institute of Cancer of São Paulo University of São Paulo São Paulo Brazil.
Universidade de São Paulo · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Surgical intervention is the treatment of choice in patients with urachal carcinoma. Due to complications and to reduce hospital stay from open surgery, minimally invasive approaches are desirable. Nowadays, robotic-assisted surgery has become increasingly popular, and robot-assisted cystectomy can be performed in patients with urachal carcinoma with low complication rates. Methods: We performed a systematic review to search for studies that evaluated patients who underwent robotic-assisted surgery for urachal carcinoma. The outcomes of interest were the type of cystectomy performed, whether there was umbilicus resection, total operative time, console time, intraoperative complications, estimated blood loss, postoperative complications, time of hospitalisation, positive surgical margins and the presence of documented tumour recurrence. Results: In this study, we evaluated three cohorts comprising a total of 21 patients. The median follow-up period ranged from 8 to 40 months. Medium age was between 51 and 54 years, with a majority (63.1%) being male. One patient (5.2%) underwent a radical cystectomy, and 19 patients (94.7%) underwent to partial cystectomy. Umbilical resections were performed in all cases, and pelvic lymphadenectomy in 14 cases (73.6%). Recurrence occurred in three patients at a median of 17 months postoperation, two cases in the trocar insertion site. Additionally, there was one death, which was attributed to postoperative cardiovascular complications. Conclusion: Robotic-assisted partial cystectomy has a low incidence of adverse outcomes in patients with urachal carcinoma. Controlled studies, ideally randomised, are warranted to establish the comparative efficacy and safety of the robotic-assisted cystectomy approach relative to open surgery.

Indexed as

bladder cancerpartial cystectomyrobotic surgeryurachal adenocarcinomaurachal carcinoma

Identifiers

PMID38481673
PMCPMC10927932
OpenAlexW4391480768

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.