ReviewCentral European journal of urology2019
Preservation of continence in radical prostatectomy patients: a laparoscopic surgeon's perspective.
Review in Central European journal of urology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Radical prostatectomy after previous transurethral resection of the prostate: oncological, surgical and functional outcomes-a meta-analysis.World journal of urology · 2020Pooled it
- Study on the impact of the reserved length of the membranous urethra during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy on the recovery of urinary control function in patients.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Impact of preoperative pelvic floor muscle strength and endurance on urinary continence after radical prostatectomy: a sub-analysis of a randomized clinical trial.Central European journal of urology · 2025Article
- Transperineal ultrasound as a reliable tool in the assessment of membranous urethra length in radical prostatectomy patients.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Prospective comparative trial on nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy using a robot-assisted versus laparoscopic technique: expectation versus satisfaction and impact on surgical margins.Central European journal of urology · 2021Article
- Beforehand transection and suturing (BTS) of the dorsal vascular complex: a novel technique in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.Gland surgery · 2020Article
- Radical prostatectomy versus brachytherapy for clinically localized prostate cancer on oncological and functional outcomes: a meta-analysis.Translational andrology and urology · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPreserving continence in patients who underwent radical prostatectomy is of utmost importance. Therefore, modification of surgical technique that would contribute to the regaining of continence with a shortest possible delay after the procedure and adequate evaluation of chances of continence recovery should be considered. MATERIAL AND
methodsA PubMed database search was performed to review the current literature concerning the physiology and anatomy of sphincter mechanisms, perioperative risk factors, the effects of surgical techniques on post-prostatectomy continence and post-operative management.
resultsModifications of surgical approach with an aim to minimize damage to the sphincter complex, maintenance of maximal urethral length to enable safe anastomosis, and the reconstruction of the urethral support system appears necessary. The patient should also be informed about the chances of regaining continence after surgery.
conclusionsThere is a need to develop a predictive model to stratify patients according to risk of incontinence and implement adequate action to minimize those risks including preoperative pelvic floor muscle training and/or surgical technique modification.
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.