Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40067494›Full record

ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2025

Robotic-assisted retroperitoneal lymph node dissection: defining selection parameters-a B-SAFE approach.

K Haq, D Chia, U M Haroon, A Oluwole-Ojo, F Reeves, H Verma, R Nair, S Rudman, D Crawley, J Armitage and 5 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article 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 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

K HaqThe Urology Centre, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. Kamran.haq@gstt.nhs.uk.
D ChiaThe Urology Centre, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
U M HaroonThe Urology Centre, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
A Oluwole-OjoThe Urology Centre, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
F ReevesThe Urology Centre, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
H VermaThe Urology Centre, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
R NairThe Urology Centre, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
S RudmanThe Urology Centre, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
D CrawleyThe Urology Centre, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
J ArmitageAddenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
A RiddickAddenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
J ShamashDepartment of Medical Oncology, Barts Health, London, UK.
T S O'BrienThe Urology Centre, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
A FernandoThe Urology Centre, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
B ChallacombeThe Urology Centre, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The objective of the study is to define selection parameters for RRPLND and evaluate the outcomes from cases selected via this method. Patients undergoing RRPLND from 2017 to 2023 (n = 57) were included. Initial criteria for robotic case selection were defined via 'B-SAFE' parameters. Safety was assessed via complication rate and oncological outcome. Analysis of both robotic and open RPLND outcomes including data from across the Anglican Germ Cell Cancer Collaborative Group was done. Mean lesion size was 30 mm (9-72). No cases required open conversion. Positive margin rate was 5.2%. Median length of stay (LOS) was 2 days (1-5). Overall complication rate was 15.7%. One patient required radiological intervention via embolization for a post-operative bleed. No in-field recurrences was observed at a median follow-up of 25 months (1-81). Analysis of parallel open RPLND cohort (n = 57) showed some differences in LOS (2 vs 6 [p =  < 0.05]) and bloods loss (130 vs 865 [p =  < 0.05]) likely explained by case complexity. Nodal yield higher in RRPLND (23 vs 10 [p =  < 0.05]). No significant difference in operation time (4.5 vs 4.6 [p = 0.5]), positive margins (5.2 vs 15.8% [p = 0.06]) or complication rates (15.7 vs 17% [p = 0.85]). This series proposed six parameters that can be used to appropriately select cases for RRPLND which we have defined using the 'B-SAFE' system. Our results using this framework are encouraging, with no instances of open conversion, excellent short-term oncological outcomes and no compromise of peri-operative morbidity with a short LOS. We also demonstrate an evolution in our practice towards more complex cases suggesting that as unit experience grows, initial selection criteria can be expanded to tackle more complex lesions.

Indexed as

Lymph Node ExcisionNeoplasms, Germ Cell and EmbryonalRobotic Surgical ProceduresTesticular NeoplasmsAdultHumansLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedOperative TimePatient SelectionPostoperative ComplicationsRetroperitoneal SpaceRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeCase selectionMetastatic testicular cancerMinimally invasiveRetroperitoneal lymph node dissectionRobotics

Identifiers

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.