SynthesisBladder cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2023
Comparison of Robotic vs Open Cystectomy: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Bladder cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparing quality of life after robot assisted versus open radical cystectomy: A systematic review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Survival Outcomes of Open Versus Robot-Assisted Radical Cystectomy: A Large-Scale Multicenter Propensity Score Matched Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Optimizing local control in the surgical management of bladder cancer.Nature reviews. Urology · 2026Review
- Demonstrating the non-inferiority of robotic radical cystectomy for cT3-cT4 urothelial carcinoma in the era of neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a propensity score-matched analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Comprehensive 90-Day Morbidity Assessment Following Robot-Assisted Radical Cystectomy With Intracorporeal Diversion.Advances in urology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe benefits of a robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) compared to an open approach is still under debate. Initial data on RARC were from trials where urinary diversion was performed by an extracorporeal approach, which does not represent a completely minimally invasive procedure. There are now updated data for RARC with intracorporeal urinary diversion that add to the evidence profile of RARC.
objectiveTo perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of RARC compared with open radical cystectomy (ORC). MATERIALS AND
methodsMultiple databases were searched up to May 2022. We included randomised trials in which patients underwent RARC and ORC. Oncological and safety outcomes were assessed.
resultsSeven trials of 907 participants were included. There were no differences seen in primary outcomes: disease progression [RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.23], major complications [RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.24] and quality of life [SMD 0.05, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.38]. RARC resulted in a decreased risk of perioperative blood transfusion [RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.76], wound complications [RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.55] and reduced length of hospital stay [MD -0.62 days, 95% CI -1.11 to -0.13]. However, there was an increased risk of developing a ureteric stricture [RR 4.21, 95% CI 1.07 to 16.53] in the RARC group and a prolonged operative time [MD 70.4 minutes, 95% CI 34.1 to 106.7]. The approach for urinary diversion did not impact outcomes.
conclusionRARC is an oncologically safe procedure compared to ORC and provides the benefits of a minimally invasive approach. There was an increased risk of developing a ureteric stricture in patients undergoing RARC that warrants further investigation. There was no difference in oncological outcomes between approaches.
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.