ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2025
Robotic-assisted retroperitoneal lymph node dissection: defining selection parameters-a B-SAFE approach.
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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Comparison of Perioperative and Oncologic Outcomes Between Robotic and Open Retroperitoneal Lymph Node Dissection in Testicular Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Robotic assisted versus non-robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Research trends and collaboration patterns in robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Microvascular Anastomoses and Beyond: Exploring the Role of Robotic Systems in Microneurosurgery.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Comment on "Robotic-assisted retroperitoneal lymph node dissection: defining selection parameters-a B-SAFE approach".Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
40067494What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.