SynthesisWorld journal of urology2026
Intra-corporeal robot-assisted versus open radical cystectomy: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in World journal of urology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the safety and effectiveness between robot-assisted radical cystectomy with intracorporeal urinary diversion (iRARC) and open radical cystectomy (ORC).
methodsWe conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis of the primary outcomes of interest according to the PRISMA and AMSTAR Guidelines. Five databases were systematically searched, including Medline, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science. The search timeframe was set from database creation to February 2026.
resultsThere were 30 studies including 8857 patients. Compared with ORC, iRARC was superior in terms of estimated blood loss [WMD=-523.18, 95% CI (-622.68, -423.68), P < 0.01], length of stay [WMD=-2.30, 95% CI (-3.27, -1.33), P < 0.01], lymph nodes removed [WMD = 2.39, 95% CI (0.16, 4.62), P < 0.05], transfusion [OR = 0.15, 95% CI (0.08, 0.29), P < 0.01], positive surgical margin [OR = 0.73, 95% CI (0.55, 0.96), P < 0.05], postoperative complications [OR = 0.59, 95% CI (0.37, 0.95), P < 0.05], Clavien-Dindo > II complications [OR = 0.66, 95% CI (0.47, 0.94), P < 0.05], and intraoperative complications [OR = 0.51, 95% CI (0.26, 0.97), P < 0.05], but it had a longer operative time [WMD = 66.11, 95% CI (45.31, 86.90), P < 0.01]. The two surgical groups were comparable in terms of solid food intake time (p = 0.29), bowel obstruction (p = 0.36), and Clavien-Dindo I-II complications (p = 0.34). Postoperative long-term follow-up results showed that iRARC was superior in terms of 30-day complications [OR = 0.58, 95% CI (0.38, 0.88), P < 0.05], 90-day complications [OR = 0.67, 95% CI (0.58, 0.78), P < 0.01], 30-day Clavien-Dindo > II complications [OR = 0.66, 95% CI (0.52, 0.84), P < 0.05], 90-day Clavien-Dindo > II complications [OR = 0.77, 95% CI (0.63, 0.94), P < 0.01], 5-year cancer-specific survival [CSS HR = 0.71, 95% CI (0.51, 0.98), P < 0.05], and 5-year overall survival [OS HR = 0.73, 95% CI (0.60, 0.87), P < 0.01], but it had a higher incidence of ureteroenteric stricture [UES OR = 1.57, 95% CI (1.18, 2.09), P < 0.01]. The two surgical groups were comparable in terms of 30-day Clavien-Dindo I-II complications (p = 0.28), 90-day Clavien-Dindo I-II complications (p = 0.99), 30-day readmission (p = 0.68), 90-day readmission (p = 0.51), 90-day death (p = 0.37), recurrence (p = 0.18), 3-year CSS (p = 0.88), and 3-year OS (p = 0.19).
conclusionCompared with ORC, iRARC was associated with improved perioperative outcomes, but attention should be paid to the monitoring and management of postoperative UES. Although improved 5-year OS and CSS were observed, these findings should be interpreted with caution because most of the available evidence was derived from observational studies and may have been influenced by residual confounding. Further large-scale, high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to validate these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42525253What 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.