Differences in trends in the use of robot‐assisted and open radical cystectomy and changes over time in peri‐operative outcomes among selected centres in North America and Europe: an international multicentre collaboration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare trends in the use of robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) and changes over time in peri-operative outcomes in selected North American and European centres. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective evaluation of 2401 patients treated with open radical cystectomy (ORC) or RARC for bladder cancer at 12 centres in North America and Europe between 2006 and 2018. We used the Kruskal-Wallis and chi-squared test to evaluate differences between continuous and categorical variables. RESULTS: Overall, 49.5% of patients underwent RARC and 51.5% ORC. RARC became the most commonly performed procedure in contemporary patients, with an increase from 29% in 2006-2008 to 54% in 2015-2018 (P < 0.001). In the North American centres the use of RARC was higher than that of ORC from 2006, and remained stable over time, whereas in the European centres its use increased exponentially from 2% to 50%. In both groups patients who underwent RARC had less advanced T stages (P < 0.001), lower American Society of Anesthesiologists scores (P < 0.05), lower blood loss (P = 0.001) and shorter length of hospital stay (P < 0.05). No differences were found in early complications. Early readmission and re-operation rates were worse for patients treated with RARC in the European centres; however, when contemporary patients only were considered, the statistical significance was lost. CONCLUSION: The present study shows that the use of RARC has constantly increased since its introduction, overtaking ORC in the most contemporary series. While RARC was more frequently performed than ORC since its introduction in the North American centres and its use remained substantially stable over time, its use increased exponentially in the European centres. The different trends in use of RARC/ORC and changes over time in peri-operative outcomes between the North American and European centres can be attributed to the earlier introduction and spread of RARC in the former compared with the latter.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".