Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31089802›Full record

SynthesisWorld journal of urology2020

Retzius sparing robotic assisted radical prostatectomy vs. conventional robotic assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Chandan Phukan, Andrew Mclean, Arjun Nambiar, Ankur Mukherjee, Bhaskar Somani, Rajbabu Krishnamoorthy, Ashwin Sridhar, Prabhakar Rajan, Prasanna Sooriakumaran, Bhavan Prasad Rai

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in World journal of urology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Optimizing Nerve Sparing in Robotic-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Comparative Investigation of Traditional and Modified Endopelvic Fascia Preservation Techniques.Acta informatica medica : AIM : journal of the Society for Medical Informatics of Bosnia & Herzegovina : casopis Drustva za medicinsku informatiku BiH · 2023
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

10 authors.

Chandan PhukanJames Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, UK.
Andrew McleanJames Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, UK.
Arjun NambiarFreeman Hospital, Newcastle, UK.
Ankur MukherjeeFreeman Hospital, Newcastle, UK.
Bhaskar SomaniUniversity Hospital Southampton NHS Trust, Southampton, UK.
Rajbabu KrishnamoorthyGuthrie Corning Hospital, 1 Guthrie Drive, Corning, NY, 14830, USA.
Ashwin SridharUniversity College London Hospitals, London, UK.
Prabhakar RajanUniversity College London Hospitals, London, UK.
Prasanna SooriakumaranUniversity College London Hospitals, London, UK.
Bhavan Prasad RaiFreeman Hospital, Newcastle, UK. urobhavan@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextRetzius sparing robotic assisted radical prostatectomy appears to have better continence rates when compared to conventional robotic assisted radical prostatectomy, however, concern with high positive surgical margin rates exist.

objectiveTo systematically evaluate evidence comparing functional and oncological outcomes of retzius sparing robotic assisted radical prostatectomy and conventional robotic assisted radical prostatectomy. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The systematic review was performed in accordance with the Cochrane guidelines and the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA). Bibliographic databases searched were PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane central register of controlled trials-CENTRAL (in The Cochrane library-issue 1, 2018). We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the evidence. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The search retrieved 137 references through electronic searches of various databases. Six were included in the review. RS-RALP was associated with better early continence rates (≤ 1 month) (moderate quality evidence) (RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.27, 2.32, p 0.0005) and at 3 months (low quality evidence) (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.03, 1.88, p 0.03). Time to continence recovery, number of pads used and pad weight are better with RS-RALP. Based on very low quality evidence, RS-RALP did not alter 6 and 12 months continence rates. Based on very low quality evidence, RS-RALP did not alter T2 positive margin rates (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.91, 3.06, p 0.10) and T3 positive margin rates (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.68, 1.70, p = 0.75). Short-term biochemical free survival appears to be similar between the two approaches. Based on low-quality evidence, RS-RALP did not alter overall and major complication rates.

conclusionsRS-RARP appears to have earlier continence recovery when compared to Con-RARP which does not come at a significant oncologic cost. Whilst there was a trend towards higher PSM rates with RS-RALP, this did not achieve statistical significance. Furthermore this trend appeared to be less pronounced with T3 disease, where the PSM rates are almost similar.

Indexed as

Robotic Surgical ProceduresHumansMaleProstatectomyProstatic NeoplasmsTreatment OutcomeIncontinencePositive marginsProstate cancerProstatectomyRetziusRobotics

Identifiers

PMID31089802

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.