ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
Clinical efficacy of laparoscopic radical cystectomy with intracorporeal urinary diversion and an analysis of factors influencing complications.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. 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
Purpose: To explore the feasibility of combined laparoscopic radical cystectomy (LRC) and intracorporeal urinary diversion (ICUD) in the treatment of bladder cancer, as well as the influencing factors related to complications. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted on 116 bladder cancer patients who underwent LRC at our facility between January 2019 and December 2023. Based on the different urinary diversion methods, 78 patients received extracorporeal urinary diversion (ECUD), while 38 patients underwent intracorporeal urinary diversion (ICUD). The two groups were compared in terms of clinicopathologic data, perioperative outcomes, postoperative tumor control, complication rates, and their influencing factors. Results: No statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of median total operative time, hospital stay, perioperative transfusion rate, and short-term oncological outcomes. Compared to the ECUD group, the ICUD group experienced less intraoperative blood loss (200 ml vs. 350 ml) and an earlier start to postoperative liquid diet intake (4 days vs. 5 days) (p < 0.05). A total of 24 cases of ≥III grade complications occurred within 90 days postoperatively, with 20 cases in the ECUD group and 4 in the ICUD group. There was no significant difference in the incidence of ≥III grade complications between the two groups (p > 0.05). Sepsis was the most common major complication. Logistic regression analysis identified smoking history, diabetes, and intraoperative blood loss as independent risk factors for ≥III complications. Conclusions: ICUD is a secure and effective method with advantages such as improved postoperative bowel recovery, reduced intraoperative blood loss, and fewer overall postoperative complications. Furthermore, major complications are influenced by multiple risk factors and should be carefully considered during preoperative and postoperative management.
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.