ReviewJournal of robotic surgery2025
Robot-assisted retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in testicular cancer: state of the art and future perspectives.
Review 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 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.
- Research trends and collaboration patterns in robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Global trends in robot-assisted retroperitoneal tumor surgery: a bibliometric and visualized analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robot-assisted retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (R-RPLND) is an increasingly adopted minimally invasive option for carefully selected patients with testicular germ-cell tumours. We performed a narrative (non-systematic) review of retrospective single- and multicentre cohorts from high-volume programmes to appraise peri-operative safety, functional preservation, and oncologic control in primary and post-chemotherapy settings. In primary disease (typically clinical stage I–IIA/B), representative medians across series from expert centres include estimated blood loss of ~ 50 to 200 mL, hospital stay of 1–2 days, and nodal yields of ~ 19 to 32; major complications (Clavien–Dindo ≥ III) are uncommon (~ 0 to 10%), and antegrade ejaculation is usually preserved (often ≥ 85 to 100%) when nerve-sparing templates are applied. In post-chemotherapy cohorts—generally limited to smaller, peripherally located residual masses with favourable biology—robotic RPLND is feasible but technically demanding, with reported conversion rates of ~ 0 to 13% and major complication rates of ~ 10 to 20%; chylous complications remain a notable risk. Across available retrospective comparative series, including propensity-matched cohorts, R-RPLND has been associated with lower estimated blood loss and shorter hospitalisation than open RPLND (for example, ~ 200 vs 300 mL and 1 vs 5 days in a matched primary cohort; ~ 235 vs 825 mL and 2 vs 7 days in post-chemotherapy series), at the cost of longer operative time, while nodal yields and short-term oncologic outcomes appear comparable; these non-randomised data are descriptive and subject to selection and centre bias rather than proof of causality. For carefully staged seminoma IIA/B (≤ 3 cm nodes), contemporary guidelines permit RPLND as a chemotherapy-sparing option (Moderate recommendation; Evidence Level B), consistent with phase II data showing high 2–3-year disease control after primary RPLND. Centralisation and experience are critical: population-based analyses suggest fewer in-hospital complications and shorter hospital stays with robotic cases, and learning-curve data show improving efficiency and safety as programmes mature. Overall, when undertaken by experienced teams in high-volume centres, R-RPLND offers low blood loss, short hospitalisation, favourable ejaculatory outcomes, and low in-field recurrence for appropriately selected patients, while requiring judicious case selection and a low threshold for conversion in technically demanding post-chemotherapy disease.
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.