Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40260829›Full record

ArticleBJU international2025

Matched-pair analysis of peri-operative and oncological outcomes of robot-assisted vs open retroperitoneal lymph node dissection.

Pailin Pongratanakul, Marieke Vermeulen-Spohn, Carolin Wöltjen, Sophia Thy, Andreas Hiester, Peter Albers, Yue Che

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BJU international, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Current Treatment Patterns and Outcomes of Sex Cord Stromal Tumor Patients in Japan.International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Pailin PongratanakulDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Düsseldorf, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Marieke Vermeulen-SpohnDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Düsseldorf, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Carolin WöltjenDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Düsseldorf, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Sophia ThyDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Düsseldorf, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Andreas HiesterDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Düsseldorf, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Peter AlbersDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Düsseldorf, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Yue CheDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Düsseldorf, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7873-3114

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo analyse a comparatively large cohort of patients who underwent robot-assisted retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (R-RPLND) in a single centre, assessing the peri-operative and oncological safety of this procedure compared to that in a matched-pair cohort of patients who underwent open retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (O-RPLND).

methodsWe retrospectively identified 100 patients who underwent R-RPLND between October 2010 and January 2024. A matched-pair analysis of R-RPLNDs and O-RPLNDs was conducted based on the following criteria: surgical indication, histology, clinical stage (CS), and tumour size. The primary endpoint of this analysis was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were peri-operative parameters.

resultsBased on surgical indication, the R-RPLND cohort was divided into four groups: CS II seminoma (Group 1, 42 patients); marker-negative CS II non-seminoma (Group 2, 15 patients); CS I non-seminoma with high-risk factors (Group 3, seven patients), and post-chemotherapy patients (Group 4, 34 patients). Two patients were excluded due to uncommon testicular histology. With a mean follow-up of 32, 31, 32 and 28 months in the four groups, respectively, relapses occurred in 10/42 of Group 1, 3/15 of Group 2, and 1/7 of Group 3, while all patients remained relapse-free in Group 4. The matched-pair analysis revealed that histological retroperitoneal lymph node dissection specimens, relapse rates, and PFS were similar in the R-RPLND and O-RPLND groups. R-RPLND had advantages in terms of a shorter hospital stay as a surrogate for less morbidity.

conclusionIn selected patients and selected surgical indications, R-RPLND represents a minimally invasive alternative to O-RPLND in the management of patients with testicular germ cell tumours.

Indexed as

Lymph Node ExcisionNeoplasms, Germ Cell and EmbryonalRobotic Surgical ProceduresTesticular NeoplasmsAdultHumansMaleMatched-Pair AnalysisMiddle AgedRetroperitoneal SpaceRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeYoung Adultgerm cell tumoursoncological outcomeretroperitoneal lymph node dissectionrobot‐assisted RPLNDrobotic surgerytesticular cancer

Identifiers

PMID40260829
PMCPMC12134411

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.