ArticlePloS one2024
Lymphatic embolization for early post-operative lymphatic leakage after radical cystectomy for bladder cancer.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Lymphangiography and lymphatic embolization for post-surgical abdominal leaks.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- Lymphatic Embolization for Lymphatic Leakage After Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection: Case Report.IJU case reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveAlthough radical cystectomy (RC) with pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) is the standard treatment of muscle invasive bladder cancer, it may cause lymphatic leakage. Recent studies describe lymphatic embolization (LE) as an option to manage post-operative lymphatic leakage. Hence, this study evaluated the outcome of LE in patients receiving RC and analyzed factors associated with outcomes.
methodsThis was a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent LE after RC for bladder cancer between August 2017 and June 2023. The data was assessed for analysis at January 2024. The patients were divided into a clinical success group and a clinical failure group. Clinical failure was defined as the following: 1) those who required drainage catheter placement >7 days after LE, 2) those who needed re-intervention before catheter removal, and 3) those who experienced adverse events associated with LE. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the factors associated with outcomes of LE. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: We analyzed 45 patients who underwent LE after RC. Twenty-eight (62.2%) patients were identified as clinically successful. Four patients required re-embolization, but none required more than two sessions of intervention. Three patients experienced lymphatic complications after LE. In multivariable analysis, maximal daily drainage volume of >1,000 mL/day (odds ratio [OR] = 4.729, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.018-21.974, p = 0.047) and diabetes mellitus (DM) (OR = 4.571, 95% CI: 1.128-18.510, p = 0.033) were factors associated with LE outcome. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Our results suggest LE as a potentially effective procedure for controlling post-operative lymphatic leaks after RC, with few minor side effects. Patients exceeding a daily drainage of 1,000mL/day or with a medical history of DM have a higher risk for re-intervention and clinical failure after LE.
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.