Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40616730›Full record

ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2025

Extracorporeal vs. intracorporeal urinary diversion at robot-assisted radical cystectomy: adverse in-hospital outcomes.

Michele Nicolazzini, Mattia Longoni, Fabian Falkenbach, Andrea Marmiroli, Quynh Chi Le, Calogero Catanzaro, Federico Polverino, Jordan A Goyal, Alberto Briganti, Markus Graefen and 9 more

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. [Application of whole-process nutritional management based on IKAP theory in patients undergoing radical cystectomy with ileal conduit diversion].Zhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2025
    Article
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

19 authors.

Michele NicolazziniCancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada. michelenicolazzini@yahoo.it.
Mattia LongoniCancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Fabian FalkenbachCancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Andrea MarmiroliCancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Quynh Chi LeCancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Calogero CatanzaroCancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Federico PolverinoCancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Jordan A GoyalCancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Alberto BrigantiDivision of Experimental Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.
Markus GraefenMartini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Gennaro MusiDepartment of Urology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Felix K H ChunDepartment of Urology, Goethe University, University Hospital, FrankfurtFrankfurt Am Main, Germany.
Riccardo SchiavinaDivision of Urology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Di Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Nicola LongoDepartment of Neurosciences, Science of Reproduction and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Fred SaadCancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Shahrokh F ShariatDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Carlotta PalumboDivision of Urology, Department of Translational Medicine, University of Eastern Piedmont, Maggiore Della Carità Hospital, Novara, Italy.
Alessandro VolpeDivision of Urology, Department of Translational Medicine, University of Eastern Piedmont, Maggiore Della Carità Hospital, Novara, Italy.
Pierre I KarakiewiczCancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The advantage of intracorporeal (ICUD) over extracorporeal urinary diversion (ECUD) at robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) regarding adverse in-hospital outcomes is still under debate. We addressed these knowledge gap in the National Inpatient Sample (2016-2019). RARC patients receiving either ileal conduit or neobladder were stratified according to UD technique (ECUD vs. ICUD). Propensity score matching (PSM), univariable and multivariable logistic and Poisson regression models were used to test differences in adverse in-hospital outcomes rates. Subgroups analyses focused on specific population: female patients, patients receiving neobladder, patients treated in low volume hospitals. Of 1747 RARC patients, 462 (26.4%) underwent ECUD vs. 1285 (73.6%) underwent ICUD. ECUD patients were more frequently treated in low volume hospitals (72.3 vs. 66.2%, p = 0.02) and more frequently received neobladder than their ICUD counterparts (10.2 vs. 4.7%, p < 0.001). The proportions of ECUD and ICUD significantly differed within United States regions (p = 0.001). After one-to-one PSM between ECUD and ICUD patient, 444 (96.1%) ECUD patients and 444 (34.6%) ICUD patients were compared. After separate univariable and multivariable logistic and Poisson regression models, ECUD was not an independent predictor of adverse in-hospital outcome in 13 examined-categories. Similarly, no differences in adverse in-hospital outcomes were identified between ECUD vs. ICUD within the three examined subgroups. The current data indicates no differences between ECUD and ICUD when adverse in-hospital outcomes represent the endpoint of interest. In consequence, surgical expertise with one or the other technique within individual Institutions might represent the most relevant factor to guide choice between ECUD and ICUD.

Indexed as

CystectomyRobotic Surgical ProceduresUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsUrinary DiversionAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsPropensity ScoreRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeUnited StatesUrinary BladderComplicationsNISRobotic radical cystectomyUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsUrinary diversion

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.