Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38961035›Full record

SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2024

Robotic assisted vs open radical cystectomy: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

Ludovica Cella, Giuseppe Basile, Stefano Moretto, Marco Paciotti, Rodolfo Hurle, Giovanni Lughezzani, Pier Paolo Avolio, Andrea Piccolini, Stefano Mancon, Massimo Lazzeri and 8 more

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-AnalysisComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of robotic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. 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

18 authors.

Ludovica Cella *Department of Biochemical Science, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.
Giuseppe Basile *Department of Urology, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Stefano Moretto *Department of Biochemical Science, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy. stefano.moretto@humanitas.it.
Marco PaciottiDepartment of Urology, Humanitas Clinical and Research Institute IRCCS, Rozzano, Milan, Italy.
Rodolfo HurleDepartment of Urology, Humanitas Clinical and Research Institute IRCCS, Rozzano, Milan, Italy.
Giovanni LughezzaniDepartment of Biochemical Science, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.
Pier Paolo AvolioDepartment of Biochemical Science, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.
Andrea PiccoliniDepartment of Biochemical Science, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.
Stefano ManconDepartment of Biochemical Science, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.
Massimo LazzeriDepartment of Urology, Humanitas Clinical and Research Institute IRCCS, Rozzano, Milan, Italy.
Andrea GallioliDepartment of Urology, Fundació Puigvert, Barcelona, Spain.
Camille BerquinDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Ghent, Ghent, Belgium.
Pietro DianaDepartment of Urology, Fundació Puigvert, Barcelona, Spain.
Laura S MertensDepartment of Surgical Oncology (Urology), Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Michael BaboudjianDepartment of Urology, North Academic Hospital, AP-HM, Marseille, France.
Nicolò Maria BuffiDepartment of Biochemical Science, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.
Roberto Contieri *Department of Biochemical Science, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.
Alessandro Uleri *Department of Biochemical Science, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Several randomized control trials (RCTs) have been published comparing open (ORC) with robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC). However, uncertainty persists regarding this issue, as evidences and recommendations on RARC are still lacking. In this systematic review and metaanalysis, we summarized evidence in this context. A literature search was conducted according to PRISMA criteria, using PubMed/Medline, Web Of Science and Embase, up to March 2024. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were selected. The primary endpoint was to investigate health-related quality of life (QoL) both at 3 and 6 months after surgery. Secondary endpoints include pathological and perioperative outcomes, postoperative complications and oncological outcomes. Furthermore, we conducted a cost evaluation based on the available evidence. Eight RCTs were included, encompassing 1024 patients (515 RARC versus 509 ORC). QoL appeared similar among the two groups both after 3 and 6 months. No significant differences in overall and major complications at 30 days (p = 0.11 and p > 0.9, respectively) and 90 days (p = 0.28 and p = 0.57, respectively) were observed, as well as in oncological, pathological and perioperative outcomes, excepting from operative time, which was longer in RARC (MD 92.34 min, 95% CI 83.83-100.84, p < 0.001) and transfusion rate, which was lower in RARC (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.30-0.61, p < 0.001). Both ORC and RARC are viable options for bladder cancer, having comparable complication rates and oncological outcomes. RARC provides transfusion rate advantages, however, it has longer operative time and higher costs. QoL outcomes appear similar between the two groups, both after 3 and 6 months.

Indexed as

CystectomyPostoperative ComplicationsQuality of LifeRobotic Surgical ProceduresUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsHumansOperative TimeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeOncological outcomesOpen surgeryRadical cystectomyRobot-assisted surgeryRobotic surgerySurgical outcomes

Identifiers

PMID38961035

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.