ArticleWorld journal of urology2025
Comparison of perioperative outcomes between Bricker and Wallace anastomosis techniques in robotic-assisted radical cystectomy with intracorporeal diversion.
Article in World journal of urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Robotic-assisted intracorporeal radical cystectomy with modified ileal conduit reduces ureteroileal anastomotic stenosis risk: a comparative study with laparoscopic surgery.Annals of medicine · 2026Article
- Letter to the Editor: Wallace versus Bricker anastomosis for urinary diversion after radical cystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026Article
- Comparative analysis of ureteroileal anastomotic stricture rates: Bricker versus Wallace techniques in ileal conduit urinary diversion-a single-surgeon study with BMI-matched design and long-term follow-up excluding cancer recurrence bias.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeUreteroileal anastomosis is a critical step in robotic radical cystectomy with intracorporeal ileal conduit for bladder cancer. This study compares perioperative outcomes and complications of Wallace versus Bricker techniques, addressing the limited data available in the robotic-assisted setting.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 96 bladder cancer patients who underwent robotic cystectomy with intracorporeal diversion (August 2018-July 2024), comparing outcomes between Bricker and Wallace ureteroileal anastomosis techniques. Demographics, perioperative data, and complications were analyzed.
resultsAmong 96 bladder cancer patients, 72 underwent Bricker and 24 underwent Wallace anastomosis. Demographics were similar between groups (age: p = 0.097; gender: p = 0.204). Operative time was shorter in the Wallace group (246 vs. 260.5 min, p = 0.160), though not statistically significant. Postoperative outcomes were comparable, including rates of hydronephrosis requiring intervention (12.5% vs. 15.8%, p = 0.694). Chronic ureteral strictures occurred only in the Bricker group, although this difference did not reach statistical significance (13.8%, p = 0.055), and urine leaks were observed in two Bricker patients, with none in the Wallace group (p = 0.594). Median length of stay was 7 days for Wallace and 5 for Bricker. There were no significant differences in 30-day or 90-day readmission rates between the two groups.
conclusionIn this single-institution study, Bricker and Wallace anastomoses during robotic cystectomy showed no significant differences in strictures, complications, or readmissions. Wallace showed favorable trends, but these were not statistically significant. Both techniques appear safe; larger studies are needed to assess potential advantages of Wallace.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40622432What 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.