ArticleCancers2025
Efficient Implementation of a Robot-Assisted Radical Cystectomy Program in a Naïve Centre Experienced in Open Radical Cystectomy and Other Robot-Assisted Surgeries: A Comparative Analysis of Perioperative Outcomes and Complications.
Article in Cancers, 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.
- Best evidence summary on gastrointestinal function recovery after radical cystectomy for bladder cancer.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing · 2026Review
- How safe is teaching radical cystectomy? : Results from the prospective Swiss society of urology database.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Transition to robotic surgery in urologic oncology: a comparative analysis between pre-robotic and robotic eras in a high-volume tertiary center.Journal of robotic surgery · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesWhile robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) has shown potential benefits over open radical cystectomy (ORC), such as reduced blood loss and quicker recovery, its adoption has been limited because of its complexity and long learning curve, especially for urinary diversion. We assessed whether a RARC program with fully intracorporeal urinary diversion could be safely implemented in a hospital with no prior experience in RARC, but with expertise in ORC and other robotic surgeries. We also compared perioperative outcomes and complications between RARC and ORC during the implementation phase.
methodsThis retrospective comparative study included 50 consecutive patients who underwent RARC between June 2023 and January 2025 and 50 patients previously treated with ORC. All RARC cases were performed with intracorporeal urinary diversion. A structured proctoring program guided two surgeons through a stepwise training approach by an expert RARC surgeon. Perioperative outcomes and 90-day complications were compared.
resultsAll RARC procedures were completed fully intracorporeally with no conversions to open surgery. Compared with ORC, RARC was associated with significantly shorter operative times (for ileal conduit diversion) and hospital stays, lower estimated blood loss, and fewer postoperative complications. There were no differences in intraoperative complications. Worst single grade ≥ 3 complications were significantly less frequent in the RARC than the ORC group (11 [11%] versus 21 [21%],
conclusionsA RARC program can be safely and effectively implemented in a previously RARC-naïve centre with existing surgical expertise. The robotic approach offers clear perioperative benefits and may represent a favourable alternative to open surgery.
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.