ArticleInternational journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association2024
Retroperitoneal cutaneous ureterostomy following radical cystectomy: A multicenter comparative study of robotic versus open surgery.
Article in International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association, 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 narrative review of the state of urinary diversion: ileal conduit, neobladder, continent cutaneous, and cutaneous ureterostomy.Translational andrology and urology · 2026Review
- Cutaneous ureterostomy following robot-assisted radical cystectomy: a multicenter comparative study of transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal techniques.World journal of urology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe aim of this study was to evaluate the differences in perioperative outcomes of cutaneous ureterostomy (CUS) between open surgery (open radical cystectomy, ORC) and robot-assisted surgery (robot-assisted radical cystectomy, RARC), including the stent-free rate, readmission rates due to urinary tract infection (UTI), and changes in renal function.
methodsBetween 2005 and 2023, a total of 37 patients underwent CUS following ORC, while 24 patients underwent CUS following RARC. Perioperative outcomes were compared between these two groups.
resultsThe patients in the RARC group were significantly older (p = 0.007) and had a significantly higher proportion of high-risk cases with ASA-PS ≥3 (p = 0.002). In addition, RARC was associated with a significantly lower estimated blood loss (p < 0.001) and a reduced transfusion rate (p = 0.003). Postoperative complication rates and the stent-free rate were comparable between the ORC and RARC groups. Throughout a median follow-up period of 2.6 years, rates of readmission due to UTI did not differ significantly between the two groups. Moreover, there were no differences in the change in estimated glomerular filtration rate before and after surgery and the 3-year survival rates were similar across both groups.
conclusionsCUS following RARC appears to offer a safer alternative compared with CUS following ORC, and the stent-free rates are comparable. The significantly lower estimated blood loss and transfusion rate associated with RARC are particularly favorable for elderly patients, those who are frail, and individuals with multiple comorbidities.
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.