Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27251473›Full record

ReviewJournal of robotic surgery2016

Current status of various neurovascular bundle-sparing techniques in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

Anup Kumar, Sarvesh Tandon, Srinivas Samavedi, Vladimir Mouraviev, Anthony S Bates, Vipul R Patel

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of robotic surgery, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Anup KumarDepartment of Urology, University of Central Florida College of Medicine and Global Robotics Institute, Florida Hospital-Celebration Health, Florida, USA. anup_14k@yahoo.com.
Sarvesh TandonVMMC and Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi, India.
Srinivas SamavediDepartment of Urology, University of Central Florida College of Medicine and Global Robotics Institute, Florida Hospital-Celebration Health, Florida, USA.
Vladimir MouravievDepartment of Urology, University of Central Florida College of Medicine and Global Robotics Institute, Florida Hospital-Celebration Health, Florida, USA.
Anthony S BatesDepartment of Urology, University of Central Florida College of Medicine and Global Robotics Institute, Florida Hospital-Celebration Health, Florida, USA.
Vipul R PatelDepartment of Urology, University of Central Florida College of Medicine and Global Robotics Institute, Florida Hospital-Celebration Health, Florida, USA.
AdventHealth Celebration · USUniversity of Central Florida · USFlorida College · USSafdarjang Hospital · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nerve-sparing procedures during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) have demonstrated improved postoperative functional outcomes. This article provides an overview of clinically applied prostatic neuro-anatomy, various techniques of nerve sparing (NS), and recent innovations in NS and potency outcomes of NS RARP. We retrieved and reviewed all listed publications within PubMed using keywords: nerve sparing, robotic radical prostatectomy, prostate cancer, outcomes, pelvic neuroanatomy and potency. Studies reporting potency outcomes of NS RARP (comparative and non-comparative) were analysed using the Delphi method with an expert panel of urological robotic surgeons. Herein, we outline the published techniques of NS during RARP. Potency and continence outcomes of individual series are discussed in light of the evidence provided by case series and published trials. The potency outcomes of various comparative and non-comparative series of NS RARP have also been mentioned. There are numerous NS techniques reported for RARP. Each method is complimented with benefits and constrained by idiosyncratic caveats, and thus, careful patient selection, a wise intraoperative clinical judgment and tailored approach for each patient is required, when decision for nerve sparing is made. Further large prospective multi-institutional randomized controlled trials are required to evaluate potency and continence outcomes of these techniques, using a rigid standard patient selection criteria and definition of potency are warranted in the new era of functional outcome-driven research.

Indexed as

AgedBiological DressingsColoring AgentsErectile DysfunctionHumansHypothermia, InducedIntraoperative ComplicationsLaparoscopyLaser TherapyMaleMiddle AgedOptical ImagingOrganic ChemicalsOrgan Sparing TreatmentsPenile ErectionProstateColoring Agentsiodocyanine greenOrganic ChemicalsNerve sparingProstatectomyRobot-assisted radical prostatectomy

Identifiers

PMID27251473
OpenAlexW2415128140

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.