SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2024
Comparative evaluation of reproductive organ-preserving versus standard radical cystectomy in female: a meta-analysis and systematic review of perioperative, oncological, and functional outcomes.
Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 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.
- Outcomes and Predictive Factors for Gynecologic Organ Involvement in Radical Cystectomy for Female Bladder Cancer Patients: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Management of clinical stage T3/T4 bladder cancer: a review.World journal of urology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate the perioperative, oncological, and functional outcomes of reproductive organ-preserving radical cystectomy (ROPRC) compared to standard radical cystectomy (SRC) in the treatment of female bladder cancer.
methodsA systematic search was conducted in November 2023 across several scientific databases. We executed a systematic review and cumulative meta-analysis of the primary outcomes of interest, adhering to the PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines. The study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024501522).
resultsThe meta-analysis included 10 studies with a total of 2015 participants. ROPRC showed a significant reduction in operative time and postoperative fasting period compared to SRC (MD - 45.69, 95% CI - 78.91 ~ - 12.47, p = 0.007, and MD - 0.69, 95% CI - 1.25 ~ - 0.13, p = 0.02, respectively). Functional outcomes, both daytime continence rate (OR 4.94, 95% CI 1.53 ~ 15.91, p = 0.008) and nighttime continence rate (OR 5.91, 95% CI 1.94 ~ 18.01, p = 0.002), and sexual function measured by the Female Sexual Function Index (MD 5.72, 95% CI 0.19 ~ 11.26, p = 0.04), were significantly improved in the ROPRC group. There were no significant differences between ROPRC and SRC in terms of estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, overall postoperative complications, minor complications or major complications. Oncologically, both procedures showed comparable outcomes with no significant differences in positive surgical margins, tumor recurrence rates, overall survival, cancer-specific survival, recurrence-free survival, or progression-free survival.
conclusionsROPRC is a viable and effective alternative to SRC in female bladder cancer patients, offering enhanced functional outcomes and similar oncological safety. These findings suggest that ROPRC can improve the quality of life in female bladder cancer patients without compromising the efficacy of cancer treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39009729What 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.