Trial reportWorld journal of urology2015
Retropubic, laparoscopic and mini-laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a prospective assessment of patient scar satisfaction.
Trial report in World journal of urology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pelvic mass causing hematospermia: splenosis.BMC urology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare patient scar satisfaction after retropubic, standard laparoscopic, mini-laparoscopic (ML) and open radical prostatectomy (RP).
methodsPatients undergoing RP for a diagnosis of localized prostate cancer at a single academic hospital between September 2012 and December 2013 were enrolled in this prospective nonrandomized study. The patients were included in three study arms: open surgery, VLP and ML. A skin stapler was used for surgical wound closure in all cases. Demographic and main surgical outcomes, including perioperative complications, were analyzed. Surgical scar satisfaction was measured using the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Questionnaire (POSAS) and the two Body Image Questionnaire (BIQ) scales, respectively, recorded at skin clips removal and either at 6 months after surgery.
resultsOverall, 32 patients were enrolled and completed the 6 month of follow-up. At clips removal, laparoscopic approaches offered better scar result than open surgery according to the POSAS. However, at 6 months, no differences were detected between VLP and open, whereas ML was still associated with a better scar outcome (p = 0.001). This finding was also confirmed by both BIQ scales, including the body image score (ML 9.8 ± 1.69, open 15.73 ± 3.47, VLP 13.27 ± 3.64; p = 0.001) and the cosmetic score (ML 16.6 ± 4.12, open 10 ± 1.9, LP 12.91 ± 3.59; p = 0.001). Small sample size and lack of randomization represent the main limitations of this study.
conclusionsML RP offers a better cosmetic outcome when compared to both open and standard laparoscopic RP, representing a step toward minimal surgical scar. The impact of scar outcome on RP patients' quality of life remains to be determined.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.