ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2024
A Review of the Literature on Videoscopic and Robotic Inguinal-Iliac-Obturator Lymphadenectomy in Patients with Cutaneous Melanoma.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Inguinal-iliac-obturator lymph node dissection is essential in the treatment of patients with cutaneous melanoma exhibiting the clinical or radiological involvement of pelvic lymph nodes. The open procedure is associated with elevated mortality rates. Numerous minimally invasive approaches have been suggested to mitigate the impact of this surgery on the patient's quality of life. The preliminary findings of robotic-assisted dissection have been documented in the literature. They demonstrate a decrease in potential issues linked to robotic-assisted treatments as compared to open or video laparoscopic methods. No implications have been reported for long-term oncological outcomes. The present study compares the outcomes in 64 patients with robotic procedures, 187 with videoscopic procedures, and 83 with open pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND). However, the quality of evidence is too low to draw any valid conclusions. The available literature shows that a robotic procedure is feasible and has similar complication rates and oncological outcomes to other methods. The reason for the shorter operative time is not clear, but is associated with lower hospital costs. It is probable that, from a surgeon's point of view, robotic techniques offer several advantages over videoendoscopic techniques, such as three-dimensional imaging, ergonomic control, and tools that mimic human hand movements. Randomized controlled trials are necessary to validate the benefits of robotic inguinal-iliac-obturator lymph node dissection (RIIOL) compared to videoscopic and open procedures, but the recruitment rate is very low because of the restricted indications for lymph node dissection against the background of the continuously evolving system of therapy.
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.