ArticleFrontiers in urology2023
Robot-assisted laparoscopic orchiopexy: A comparative analysis with laparoscopic orchiopexy.
Article in Frontiers in urology, 2023. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: While undescended testes are relatively common, the nonpalpable testis remains a challenging problem. The gold standard treatment remains the laparoscopic orchiopexy. However, today robot-assisted surgery has challenged traditional laparoscopy in many areas of urology. Yet the value of this new approach remains controversial, given concerns with operative time and cost. We reviewed our contemporary results of both robot-assisted orchiopexy (RALO) and traditional laparoscopic orchiopexy (TLO). Our primary aims were to retrospectively compare success rates, and operative time. Our secondary aims were to compare costs and complications related to each method. Methods: In this study, all patients treated with laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic orchiopexy from April 2017 to January 2022 were reviewed using CPT code 54692. Exclusion criteria included bilateral concomitant orchiopexy or concomitant "major surgery," or follow up less than 6 months. Also excluded were 1 Results: After exclusion criteria was applied, 16 and 17 remained in the laparoscopic and robot-assisted cohorts, respectively. Upon follow up, all patients in both the laparoscopic and robot-assisted cohorts were noted to have a healthy testicle palpable in the dependent portion of the scrotum. The median operative time in the TLO group was 71 minutes, compared to 101 minutes in the RALO group (p>0.0001). When comparing median hospital charges, the TLO group was lower at $38,813, compared to $46,455 in the RALO group (p = 0.0069). There was one postoperative complication in the TLO group (localized wound infection), compared to zero in the RALO group. Conclusions: The robot-assisted orchiopexy is safe and effective. However, at this time it remains more costly in terms of time and resources.
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.