ArticleWorld journal of surgical oncology2025
Extraperitoneal vs transperitoneal laparoscopic cystectomy: optimized surgical techniques and long-term outcomes in a single-center retrospective cohort study.
Article in World journal of surgical oncology, 2025. 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate and compare the long-term oncologic outcomes and perioperative performance of extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical cystectomy (ELRC) versus transperitoneal laparoscopic radical cystectomy (TLRC) in patients with bladder cancer (BC). PATIENTS AND
methodsThis retrospective single-center cohort study included 298 BC patients who underwent ELRC (n = 202) or TLRC (n = 96) between January 2020 and January 2025. Primary endpoints included overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), progression-free survival (PFS), and recurrence-free survival (RFS). Secondary endpoints were operative time, estimated blood loss, gastrointestinal recovery, and perioperative complications. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, Cox regression, and subgroup analysis were used to evaluate outcomes and risk factors.
resultsThe mean follow-up was 25.6 months for ELRC and 30.7 months for TLRC. There were no significant differences in projected OS (HR = 0.89, P = 0.562), CSS (HR = 0.87, P = 0.492), PFS (HR = 1.09, P = 0.693), or RFS (HR = 1.16, P = 0.453) between the two groups. ELRC was associated with significantly shorter operative time, less blood loss, faster gastrointestinal recovery, and lower incidence of ileus and infections (all P < 0.05). Multivariable analysis identified pathological T stage and ASA score as independent predictors of OS. Subgroup analysis showed no significant impact of urinary diversion type or tumor stage on survival outcomes between the two approaches.
conclusionLRC may be a feasible alternative to TLRC, with potential advantages in perioperative recovery and reduced postoperative complications, while demonstrating comparable oncologic outcomes. Prospective multicenter studies with longer-term follow-up are warranted to confirm these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.