MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411135866 · doi:10.1016/j.euf.2025.05.024

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis on Perioperative Stenting/Dwell Time and Postoperative Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Radical Cystectomy and Urinary Diversion for Bladder Cancer

2025· review· en· W4411135866 on OpenAlexaff
Mithun Kailavasan, Alberto Martini, Max Bruins, Albert Carrión, Richard Cathomas, Éva Compérat, Jason A. Efstathiou, Rainer Fietkau, Laura S. Mertens, Richard P. Meijer, P. Mariappan, Matthew I. Milowsky, Y. Neuzillet, Valeria Panebianco, Michael Rink, George N. Thalmann, Sæbjørn Sæbjørnsen, Toine van der Heijden

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Urology Focus · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsVictoria Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCystectomyUrinary diversionPerioperativeBladder cancerMeta-analysisSurgeryCochrane LibrarySystematic reviewStentAnastomosisMEDLINERandomized controlled trialCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Ureteral stents are used to protect the ureteroenteric anastomosis during radical cystectomy and urinary diversion (RCUD); however, complications can occur from its use. The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review of perioperative stenting strategies and postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing RCUD for bladder cancer. METHODS: This review was published via PROSPERO (CRD42024558468) and conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Medline, Medline In-Process, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched. Prospective comparative (randomised and nonrandomised) studies published until June 2024 were included. All outcomes were included in the analysis. Risk of bias assessments were undertaken. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: The search yielded 1516 abstracts. Six prospective comparative studies (740 patients) were included. Although there was some evidence of reduced postoperative complications (urinary leak, ureteroileal stricture, postoperative obstruction, length of stay, and readmission within 30 d) with the omission of stents during RCUD, this did not reach statistical significance (n = 3). No differences in postoperative complications were identified between internal and external stenting (n = 2). Early stent removal (5 d) was associated with reduced urinary tract infections and hospital readmission (n = 1). There was a high/serious risk of bias with all studies. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The role of perioperative stenting during RCUD in preventing ureteroenteric complications remains equivocal and does not favour one approach over another. Until further results from on-going randomised controlled trials become available, urologists should carefully consider the indications to place a ureteric stent and its retention time after RCUD.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.036
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Urology FocusSame topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207