SynthesisLangenbeck's archives of surgery2025
Transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal laparoscopic nephroureterectomy: a meta-analysis of technical approaches for upper tract urothelial carcinoma.
Synthesis in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Template-based pelvic lymph node dissection during lateral decubitus-positioned total retroperitoneal laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy: a step-by-step description of a surgical technique.Translational andrology and urology · 2026Article
- Radiomics and deep learning in upper tract urothelial carcinoma: advancing preoperative risk stratification and clinical decision-making.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveIt was to compare perioperative outcomes between transperitoneal (TLNU) and retroperitoneal (RLNU) approaches for laparoscopic nephroureterectomy in UTUC.
methodsLiterature pertaining to "TLNU", "RLNU", and "upper-tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC)" was systematically retrieved from databases, covering the period from January 2000 to July 2024. Quality and risk of bias were assessed utilizing Cochrane Handbook, and extracted basic information and outcome data. Meta-analysis (MA) was conducted utilizing Review Manager 5.3.
resultsThe study included a total of 11 articles. The analysis revealed no significant differences between the RLNU and TLNU groups in terms of surgical duration (mean difference (MD) = 2.83, 95% confidence interval (CI): -29.40 to 35.07, Z = 0.17, P = 0.86 > 0.05), time to bowel function recovery (MD = -0.28, 95% CI: -0.81 to 0.25, Z = 1.03, P = 0.30 > 0.05), length of hospital stay (MD = 0.70, 95% CI: -0.51 to 1.91, Z = 1.14, P = 0.26 > 0.05), incidence of complications (MD = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.43 to 2.41, Z = 0.05, P = 0.96 > 0.05), recurrence rate (MD = 1.25, 95% CI: 0.94 to 1.66, Z = 1.55, P = 0.12 > 0.05), and overall survival (OS) rate (MD = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.98 to 1.18, Z = 1.49, P = 0.14 > 0.05). However, a significant difference was observed in intraoperative blood loss (BL) between the RLNU and TLNU groups (MD = 6.78, 95% CI: 2.44 to 11.13, Z = 3.06, P = 0.002 < 0.05).
conclusionPerioperative outcomes between RLNU and TLNU show significant differences in operative time, bowel recovery, hospital stay, complications, recurrence, and OS. However, RLNU had significantly higher intraoperative blood loss (P < 0.05), though its clinical relevance remains uncertain. This analysis focused on perioperative metrics; long-term oncologic efficacy requires further investigation.
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.