ArticleWorld journal of urology2024
Perioperative complications and oncological outcomes of open versus robotic-assisted radical cystectomy: a propensity score-matched study.
Article in World journal of urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Systematic Literature Review of Real-World Treatment Effectiveness and Economic and Humanistic Burden in Patients With Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer Who Underwent Radical Cystectomy.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2025Review
- Perioperative and Oncological Outcomes of Robot-assistedIn vivo (Athens, Greece)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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo conduct a comparative effectiveness analysis between robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) and open approach (ORC). MATERIALS AND
methodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted involving all patients undergoing radical cystectomy and urinary diversion for invasive bladder cancer at our institution from 2010 to 2018. Of a total 296 patients, we matched ORC and RARC cases based on age, BMI, Charlson comorbidity index, pathological TN staging of the tumor, prior radiotherapy, and type of diversion. The perioperative complications and oncological outcomes were compared.
resultsEighty-nine patients were matched in the ORC and RARC groups. The median operative time was longer in RARC group (430 min) than that of ORC group (372 min) (p = 0.03); however, the median estimated blood loss (EBL) was significantly lower in RARC group (500 ml) than that of ORC (700 ml) (p < 0.0001). The median length of hospital stay (LOS) was significantly reduced in the RARC group (7 days) compared to the ORC group (8 days) (p = 0.02). There were no significant differences between both groups in 30- and 90-day postoperative complications (p = 0.3 and p = 0.2, respectively). A total of 68 deaths (38.2%) were observed, of which 36 (40.4%) were in ORC group while 32 (36%) were in RARC group (p = 0.5). The results were comparable in both groups regarding 5-year survival rate and cancer-specific survival (p = 0.3 and p = 0.1, respectively).
conclusionRARC showed better perioperative outcomes in the form of less EBL and shortened LOS compared to ORC group. However, both RARC and ORC provide similar postoperative oncologic control, in terms of similar positive surgical margins, cancer-specific rates, and 5-year survival rates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38587653What 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.