ArticleFrontiers in oncology2017
Comparison of Functional Outcome after Extended versus Super-Extended Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection during Radical Prostatectomy in High-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Baseline factors and surgical procedures affecting changes in lower urinary tract symptoms after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: the impact of nerve-sparing.International urology and nephrology · 2024Article
- Retzius-sparing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: functional and early oncologic results in aggressive and locally advanced prostate cancer.BMC urology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUrinary continence and erectile function (EF) are best preserved when meticulous dissection of prostate and nerve sparing technique are used during radical prostatectomy (RP). However, extent of lymph node dissection (LND) may also adversely affect functional results.
objectiveTo determine whether performing a super-extended LND (seLND) has a significant effect on recovery of urinary continence and EF after RP. DESIGN SETTING AND
participantsAll patients who underwent RP from January 2007 until December 2013 were handed questionnaires assessing continence and EF. All patients in whom at least an extended LND (eLND) was performed were selected. This search yielded 526 patients. 172 of these patients had filed out 2 or more questionnaires and were included in our analysis. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: All questionnaires were reviewed. We used Kaplan-Meier analyses and multivariate Cox analysis to assess the difference in recovery of continence and EF over time for eLND/seLND. Primary endpoints were full recovery of continence (no loss of urine) and full recovery of EF (successful intercourse possible). Patients who did not reach the endpoint when the last questionnaire was filled out were censored at that time. Median follow-up was 12.43 months for continence, and 18.97 months for EF. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Patients undergoing seLND have a lower chance of regaining both urinary continence [hazard ratio (HR) 0.59, 95% CI 0.39-0.90,
conclusionExtending the LND template beyond the eLND template may cause at least a significant delay in recovery of urinary continence and leads to less recovery of EF.
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.