ArticleIn vivo (Athens, Greece)
Perioperative and Oncological Outcomes of Robot-assisted
Article in In vivo (Athens, Greece). 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
BACKGROUND/
aimThis study aimed to compare the perioperative and oncological outcomes of open radical cystectomy (ORC) and robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) in a contemporary propensity score-matched multicenter cohort from Japan and to provide additional real-world evidence. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 438 patients who underwent radical cystectomy for bladder cancer at four Japanese institutions between March 2009 and December 2024. After excluding patients who underwent laparoscopic radical cystectomy, 397 patients were included. Propensity score matching was performed in a 1:1 ratio based on age, sex, body mass index, Charlson comorbidity index, pathological T stage, pathological nodal status, and type of urinary diversion, resulting in 123 matched pairs. Perioperative outcomes, postoperative complications, and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were compared between the ORC and RARC groups.
resultsAfter propensity score matching, baseline characteristics were generally balanced between the groups. The RARC group had a significantly longer operative time than the ORC group (461 min
conclusionIn this Japanese cohort, RARC was associated with reduced blood loss, lower transfusion rates, and shorter postoperative hospitalization while maintaining postoperative complication rates and oncological outcomes comparable to those of ORC.
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.