SynthesisAnnals of surgical oncology2026
Comparison of Perioperative and Oncologic Outcomes Between Robotic and Open Retroperitoneal Lymph Node Dissection in Testicular Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Annals of surgical oncology, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to compare the perioperative and oncologic outcomes between robotic and open retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in patients with testicular cancer.
methodsThe study was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, and quality assessment was performed following the AMSTAR criteria. A systematic search was performed in Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science databases, with the search period up to July 2025. Statistical analysis was performed using Stata 17 software.
resultsThe current results showed that compared with open retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (O-RLND), robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (R-RPLND) had a shorter hospital length of stay (effect, - 3.68; 95 % confidence interval [CI], - 4.16 to - 3.21; P < 0.05), less estimated blood loss (effect, - 296.09; 95 % CI, - 416.62 to - 175.55; P < 0.05), and a lower overall complication rate (relative risk, 0.66; 95 % CI, 0.49-0.89; P < 0.05). Lymph node production and recurrence rate did not differ significantly between the two.
conclusionRobotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection appears to be safer than O-RLND and has a faster postoperative recovery. Oncologic outcomes did not differ significantly, but more research is needed to explore further.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41927958What 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.