IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0095667.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Laparoscopic versus Open Radical Cystectomy in Bladder Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Comparative Studies

Author

Listed:
  • Kun Tang
  • Heng Li
  • Ding Xia
  • Zhiquan Hu
  • Qianyuan Zhuang
  • Jihong Liu
  • Hua Xu
  • Zhangqun Ye

Abstract

Background and Objective: More recently laparoscopic radical cystectomy (LRC) has increasingly been an attractive alternative to open radical cystectomy (ORC) and many centers have reported their early experiences in the treatment of bladder cancer. Evaluate the safety and efficacy of LRC compared with ORC in the treatment of bladder cancer. Methods: A systematic search of Medline, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library was performed up to Mar 1, 2013. Outcomes of interest assessing the two techniques included demographic and clinical baseline characteristics, perioperative, pathologic and oncological variables, and post-op neobladder function and complications. Results: Sixteen eligible trials evaluating LRC vs ORC were identified including seven prospective and nine retrospective studies. Although LRC was associated with longer operative time (p

Suggested Citation

  • Kun Tang & Heng Li & Ding Xia & Zhiquan Hu & Qianyuan Zhuang & Jihong Liu & Hua Xu & Zhangqun Ye, 2014. "Laparoscopic versus Open Radical Cystectomy in Bladder Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Comparative Studies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(5), pages 1-14, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0095667
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0095667
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0095667
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0095667&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0095667?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0095667. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.