ArticleCancer medicine2025
Safety of Robot-Assisted Radical Cystectomy for Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer: A Real-World Analysis Using the National Clinical Database in Japan.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Treatment Patterns and Outcomes After Recurrence Following Adjuvant Nivolumab for Urothelial Carcinoma: An AGEHA Real-World Study.International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association · 2026Observational
- A Nationwide Descriptive Analysis of Real-World Outcomes After Radical Prostatectomy in Japan Using the National Clinical Database.International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association · 2026Article
- A multi‑criteria decision analysis comparing robot‑assisted, laparoscopic, and open radical cystectomy using large-scale Japanese nationwide databases.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Safety of Robot-Assisted Radical Cystectomy for Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer: A Real-World Analysis Using the National Clinical Database in Japan.Cancer medicine · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRadical cystectomy (RC) is a standard-of-care treatment for muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). However, there is a lack of data comparing the benefit of robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) with laparoscopic radical cystectomy (LRC) or open radical cystectomy (ORC) in Japan. We aimed to explore the safety of RARC compared with that of LRC or ORC using the Japanese National Clinical Database (NCD).
methodsThis retrospective study reviewed the data of 17,549 patients with MIBC who underwent radical cystectomy between February 2019 and December 2022 in the Japanese NCD. We compared the postoperative complications within 30 days between the surgical procedures using the Clavien-Dindo classification. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted for grade ≥ 3 postoperative complications.
resultsOverall, 8308, 3101, and 6140 patients underwent RARC, LRC, and ORC, respectively. The rates of any grade and grade ≥ 3 postoperative complications within 30 days were significantly lower in the RARC group than in the ORC group. RARC had no significant difference in grade ≥ 3 postoperative complications in the ileal neobladder. Regarding any grade postoperative complications, RARC had a significantly lower rate of delirium, surgical site infection, sepsis, and gastrointestinal tract leakage than ORC. Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that the incidence of grade ≥ 3 postoperative complications was significantly lower in RARC (odds ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.95).
conclusionsRARC had a lower complication rate compared with ORC. LRC had comparable outcomes to RARC. The findings of this study contribute to RARC as being the standard treatment for MIBC.
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.