ReviewUrologie (Heidelberg, Germany)2025
[Retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy in the treatment of testicular germ cell tumors-Is the robot-assisted technique superior to the open surgical approach?]
Review in Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRetroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND) is an established treatment modality for nonseminomatous germ cell tumours (NSGCT) and selected seminomas. The advent of minimally invasive techniques, particularly robot-assisted RPLND (R-RPLND), involves the prospects of reducing procedure-related morbidity while maintaining oncologic efficacy. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe performed a narrative review comparing contemporary data on R‑RPLND and open RPLND (O-RPLND) across different clinical settings (primary, clinical stages I-II, and postchemotherapy). Guideline recommendations are reviewed regarding results from prospective and retrospective studies, as well as recent meta-analyses.
resultsR‑RPLND consistently demonstrated advantages in perioperative outcomes, including reduced blood loss, shorter length of hospital stay, and faster convalescence. High-grade complication rates (Clavien-Dindo ≥ III) were comparable or lower than with O‑RPLND. Oncologic outcomes, including recurrence-free survival, were noninferior across all stages. In the postchemotherapy setting, R‑RPLND was associated with lower morbidity, though surgical feasibility is highly dependent on tumour size, location, and prior abdominal surgery.
conclusionR‑RPLND represents a safe and effective alternative to O‑RPLND in selected patients when performed in high-volume centres. Its perioperative advantages, coupled with equivalent short-term oncologic outcomes, render R‑RPLND an attractive option. However, high-quality randomised trials with long-term follow-up are required to confirm oncologic equivalence and to refine patient selection criteria.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40952482What 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.