SynthesisScientific reports2017
Pelvic Floor Reconstruction After Radical Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Different Surgical Techniques.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT06355076 (Comparison of New Reconstruction and Anastomosis in Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Radical Resection), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
Comparison of New Reconstruction and Anastomosis in Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Radical Resection: a Prospective Randomized Controlled Study
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advanced Reconstruction of Vesicourethral Support (ARVUS) during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: first independent evaluation and review of other factors influencing 1 year continence outcomes.World journal of urology · 2020Trial
- Introduction of posterior reconstruction technique during robotic assisted radical prostatectomy at a tertiary center: results on the self-perception of anastomotic quality and ease of execution.International urology and nephrology · 2026Article
- Surgical techniques for enhancing postoperative urinary continence in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a comprehensive review.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2025Review
- Impact of Intraoperative Prognostic Factors on Urinary Continence Recovery Following Open and Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- How to Prevent and Manage Post-Prostatectomy Incontinence: A Review.The world journal of men's health · 2021Review
- Anatomical Fundamentals and Current Surgical Knowledge of Prostate Anatomy Related to Functional and Oncological Outcomes for Robotic-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy.Frontiers in surgery · 2021Review
- Effect of Bladder Neck Preservation on Long-Term Urinary Continence after Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2019Review
- Reproducibility of a modified posterior reconstruction during robotic intracorporeal neobladder reconfiguration.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
14 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Radical prostatectomy (RP) is the gold standard for the treatment of localized PCa. A meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the effect of different techniques of pelvic floor reconstruction on urinary continence. A comprehensive search was made for trials that evaluated the efficacy of pelvic floor reconstruction. Relevant databases included PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Ovid, Web of Science databases and relevant trials from the references. Random-effects model was used to estimate risk ratios (RRs) statistics. Pooled results of patients treated with posterior reconstruction (PR) demonstrated complete urinary continence improved at 1-4, 28-42, 90, 180 and 360 days following catheter removal. Anterior suspension (AS) was associated with improvement only at 28-42 days. The anterior reconstruction (AR) + PR was associated with urinary continence at 1-4, 90 and 180 days. AS + PR was not associated with any benefit. And PR improved social urinary continence at 7-14 and 28-42 days. No benefit was associated with AS. AR + PR had better outcomes at 90 and 180 days. AS + PR was significant improved at 28-42 and 90 days. Patients who underwent RP and PR had the least urinary incontinence. No significant benefit was observed after AS. AR + PR and AS + PR had little benefit in the post-operative period.
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.