ReviewUrologie (Heidelberg, Germany)2025
[Retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy (RPLND) for the treatment of testicular germ cell tumors-open or robotic? Pro open surgery : RPLND in the management of testis cancer].
Review in Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany), 2025. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy (RPLND) represents an established surgical treatment option for patients with testicular germ cell tumors and might be performed at various clinical stages depending on individual risk factors. Typically, RPLND is performed via a trans- or extraperitoneal open approach with dissection of a unilateral or bilateral template. Since robot-assisted approaches have been established in uro-oncological surgery, the question arises whether there is already an established indication to perform robot-assisted RPLNDs (R-RPLND). International guidelines recommend that such a surgical procedure should only be performed for selected patients in testicular cancer referral centers by highly experienced testicular cancer surgeons. We reviewed the recently published data of R‑RPLND and we conclude that R‑RPLND is technically feasible and that it can be performed with equal complication rates if done in an expert center. However, there is no benefit in terms of oncological and functional outcome. Based on the results of multicenter trials and meta-analyses, antegrade ejaculation is only preserved in 65-70% of the patients, which is inferior to open surgery done in expert centers. Duration of surgery is significantly longer compared to open surgery. Oncological outcome following R‑RPLND is difficult to validate due to the short follow-up intervals and the selection of patients. Comparison of postchemotherapeutic R‑RPLND with open surgery is also hampered due to highly selected patients with only small residual masses and short follow-up periods. In summary, R‑RPLND should only be established in testicular cancer expert centers. Currently, we perform R‑RPLND especially for marker negative clinical stage IIA/B with lymph node metastases with a size of less or equal to 3 cm.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40952481What 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.