SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2025
Comparative outcomes of intracorporeal and extracorporeal urinary diversion in robotic cystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of robotic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to elucidate the most recent evidence regarding complications, perioperative outcomes, and pathological results associated with extracorporeal urinary diversion (ECUD) in comparison to intracorporeal urinary diversion (ICUD) during robotic-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC). A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to facilitate this comparison. We conducted a thorough systematic review of relevant studies by systematically searching several databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, to assess the implications of ICUD versus ECUD in the context of RARC. The examination of binary variables employed relative risk (RR) measurements, whereas weighted mean differences (WMD) served as the primary metric for evaluating continuous variable outcomes. Twenty-two studies involving 8030 patients were included, of which 3755 received ICUD and 4278 received ECUD. Baseline characteristics were similar in the two cohorts. The study showed that the ICUD cohort had a notably lower rate of severe complications in the late phase (30-90 day) [RR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.54, 0.94, p = 0.016] than the ECUD group. Furthermore, the rate of intraoperative transfusions was notably less in ICUD, with a RR of 0.63 (95% CI 0.47, 0.84, p = 0.002). Likewise, the estimated blood loss (EBL) in the ICUD cohort was decreased, reflected by a WMD of - 131.4 (95% CI - 153.24 to - 111.03, p < 0.001). Additionally, length of stay for patients in the ICUD cohort showed a notably decrease, indicated by a WMD of - 1.87 (95% CI - 3.34, - 0.41, p = 0.004). Nonetheless, there was still no notable variation between the two cohorts regarding early (30 days) complications, mid-term (30-90 days) mild complications, rehospitalization rates, operative time (OT), postoperative venting time, tumor recurrence rates, ureteroenteric stricture (UES), and oncologic outcomes. Overall, RARC with ICUD demonstrated a greater safety profile than ECUD in terms of reduced late serious complication rates, transfusion rates, EBL, and length of hospitalization, along with similar efficacy. Although ICUD has good potential for clinical dissemination, further substantial follow-up data are required to substantiate its effectiveness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40853410What 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.