ArticleClujul medical (1957)2018
Outcomes of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy for patients in two extreme age-groups (< 50 years vs > 65 years).
Article in Clujul medical (1957), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Early-Onset Prostate Cancer: Epidemiology, Risk Factors, Biology, Clinical Features, Management, and Early Detection.MedComm · 2026Review
- A matched and controlled longitudinal cohort study of dehydrated human amniotic membrane allograft sheet used as a wraparound nerve bundles in robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a puissant adjunct for enhanced potency outcomes.Journal of robotic surgery · 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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsTo assess the outcomes of robotic radical prostatectomy in two different age subgroups of pre-operatively potent patients: younger than 50 years and older than 65 years.
methodsWe included in the present study a number of 202 patients with prostate cancer divided into two groups: 99 patients older than 65 years (group 1) and 103 patients younger than 50 years (group 2).
resultsMore than half of the younger patients were low-risk vs 57% of the older patients who were high-risk. Overall positive surgical margins rate was 21.2% in group 1 vs 12.1% in group 2. The early biochemical recurrence at 6 months after radical prostatectomy was 4% in group 1 vs 11.6% in group 2. The continence rate at 6 months was similar between the two groups and was not correlated with the patients' age (p=0.72), nerve-sparing (p=0.3 for group 1, p=0.92 for group 2) or pathological staging (overall p=0.81, p=0.89 in group 1 and p=0.63 in group 2). We observed a significantly higher rate of potency for patients in group 2 (91.5% vs 47.2%, p<0.0001). The most important factor associated with the regain of potency at 6 months after the procedure was the age of the patient (p<0.0001), independently of the type of nerve-sparing performed.
conclusionsAge seems to be the most important predictor of the regain of potency after robotic radical prostatectomy. Patients should be counseled accordingly in order to have realistic expectations about the functional results after robotic-assisted surgery.
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.