ReviewIndian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of India
Intracorporeal ileal conduit versus orthotopic neobladder after robotic radical cystectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of complications and perioperative outcomes.
Review in Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of India. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- What's inside.Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of IndiaArticle
- 41 years of Indian Journal of Urology: Reflections for 2025.Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of IndiaArticle
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
Introduction: This systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to generate evidence on the complication rates between robot-assisted radical cystectomy and intracorporeal ileal conduit (RARC ICIC) and RARC and intracorporeal orthotopic neobladder (RARC ICONB). Methods: A systematic search of the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases was performed, and all the articles from inception up to June 30, 2024, were screened. Studies reporting on perioperative complications as per the Clavien-Dindo classification and comparing RARC ICIC with RARC ICONB were included. This systematic review was performed as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Results: A total of 9 studies evaluating 999 patients were included in the final analysis, and all were retrospective analyses of prospectively maintained databases. The 30-day and 90-day complication rates, including the Clavien-Dindo I-II and III-V and the overall complication rate, were similar between RARC ICIC and RARC ICONB. RARC ICONB had a longer operative time (weighted mean difference - 69.62 min) and higher blood loss (weighted mean difference - 50.53 ml). Patients with stage pT4 and N1 were more in the RARC ICIC group as was the rate of positive surgical margin, which suggests an inherent selection bias while offering the procedure. Conclusion: This systematic review, which included only retrospective small-sized series, found that the 30-day and 90-day complication rates between RARC ICIC and RARC ICONB are similar; however, these results are marred by apparent selection bias while offering the procedure. Thus, larger, better-quality prospective randomized studies are required to provide high-quality evidence.
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.