Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30209964›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of international medical research2018

Comparison between a novel knotless technique and the conventional single knot technique of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy by novice laparoscopists.

Jianfei Ye, Jian Lu, Guoliang Wang, Lulin Ma

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of international medical research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

4 authors.

Jianfei YeDepartment of Urology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Jian LuDepartment of Urology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Guoliang WangDepartment of Urology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Lulin MaDepartment of Urology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6213-7975

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis study aimed to investigate a novel knotless technique for novice laparoscopists in traditional laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

methodsWe studied 68 patients who had a novel technique performed in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (knotless group) and 89 who had the conventional single knot technique (single knot group). The operations were all performed by novice laparoscopists with experience of fewer than 100 cases of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Knotless suture of the dorsal vein complex was conducted using a barbed self-retaining suture with three bites at the same location. The knotless urethrovesical anastomosis technique was conducted using a unidirectional single running fashion with a barbed self-retaining suture.

resultsThere were no significant differences in the estimated blood loss, complication rate, postoperative hospital stay, anastomotic leakage rate, continence at 6 months after surgery, and positive margin rate between the two groups. The mean anastomotic time (24.9 vs. 44.2 min), operative time (168.1 vs. 201.8 min), and duration of catheter placement (12.8 vs. 19.8 days) were shorter in the knotless group than in the single-knot group.

conclusionsThe knotless technique of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is a safe and effective procedure.

Indexed as

LaparoscopySuture TechniquesAgedAged, 80 and overHumansMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative CareProstatectomyTreatment Outcomedorsal vein complexKnotless techniquelaparoscopic radical prostatectomyminimal invasivenesssingle knot techniqueurethrovesical anastomosis

Identifiers

PMID30209964
PMCPMC6259390

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.