ReviewCancers2025
Comparing the Perioperative and Oncological Outcomes of Open Versus Minimally Invasive Inguinal Lymphadenectomy in Penile Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cancers, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLong-term survival in penile cancer is dependent on the presence and extent of lymph node metastases. Historically, inguinal lymph node dissection (ILND) has been performed via an open approach (O-ILND). More recently, minimally invasive surgical alternatives (MIS-ILND) such as video-endoscopic and robot-assisted ILND have emerged. This review aims to compare the (1) perioperative outcomes, (2) complication rates, and (3) oncological efficacy between O-ILND and MIS-ILND.
methodsWe conducted a PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis including studies comparing O-ILND versus MIS-ILND for penile cancer. Outcomes were pooled in random-effects meta-analyses.
resultsSixteen articles comprising 1054 patients were analysed. There was an observed trend towards longer operative time for the MIS-ILND approach (mean difference 28 min; 95% CI -2 to 58 min,
conclusionsMIS-ILND is associated with fewer perioperative complications and shorter hospitalisation without compromising oncologic outcomes. These findings support its broader adoption, particularly in high-volume centres with appropriate surgical expertise.
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.