SynthesisMedicine2018
Transperitoneal versus extraperitoneal approach in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Indocyanine green fluorescence in pelvic lymph node dissection during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a randomized controlled trial.Updates in surgery · 2025Article
- Extraperitoneal Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy with the Hugo™ RAS System: Initial Experience at a High-Volume Robotic Centre.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Corona mortis and pelvic dissection: Understanding the relationship between anatomical structures and bone areas.Journal of anatomy · 2024Article
- Article
- Extraperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with the Hugo™ RAS system: initial experience of a tertiary center with a high background in extraperitoneal laparoscopy surgery.World journal of urology · 2023Article
- Transperitoneal Versus Extraperitoneal Approach for Laparoscopic and Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Urology research & practice · 2023Article
- Clinical study of 3D laparoscopic radical prostatectomy by transperitoneal and extraperitoneal approaches.American journal of clinical and experimental urology · 2023Article
- A comparison of the da Vinci Xi vs. da Vinci Si surgical systems for radical prostatectomy.BMC surgery · 2021Article
- A novel "three-port" trocar placement technique for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.World journal of surgical oncology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo compare the transperitoneal approach with extraperitoneal approach in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) (including pure and robotic-assisted LRP) using meta-analytic techniques.
methodsMedline (PubMed), Embase, Ovid, CMB, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies that compared the transperitoneal and extraperitoneal approaches in LRP from January 2000 to January 2017. Outcomes included were operative time, operative bloods joss (milliliters), rate of transfusion, rate of open conversion, rate of intraoperative complications, rate of postoperative complications, and time of postoperative catheterization.
resultsThirteen studies including 1674 patients were selected for the meta-analysis. 850 (50.8%) cases had undergone transperitoneal LRP (TLRP) and 824 (49.2%) cases had undergone the extraperitoneal LRP (ELRP). Comparison of operative time between the TLRP group and the ELRP group showed no significant differences (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 21.21,95%CI = -1.16-43.57, P = .06). No significant differences were observed in blood loss (WMD = -6.04, 95%CI = -43.38-31.29, P = .75) and the rate of transfusion (odds ratio [OR] = 1.03, 95%CI = 0.55-1.96, P = .92) between the 2 groups. No significant differences were observed for the rate of intraoperative complications (OR = 1.25, 95%CI = 0.57-2.21, P = .75) and the rate of open conversion (OR = 1.12, 95%CI = 0.32-4.97, P = .75). Significant differences were observed in the TLRP group compared with the ELRP group (OR = 1.69, 95%CI: 1.23-2.32, P = .001) regarding the rate of postoperative complications.
conclusionsOur meta-analysis findings revealed that the TLRP group showed no significant differences in most important indicators compared with ELRP. Moreover, TLRP showed higher rate of postoperative complications compared with ELRP.
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.