ReviewTurkish journal of urology2019
Imaging modalities aiding nerve-sparing during radical prostatectomy.
Review in Turkish journal of urology, 2019. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Imaging of prostate micro-architecture using three-dimensional wide-field optical coherence tomography.Biomedical optics express · 2024Article
- Current and future perspectives of digital microscopy with fluorescence confocal microscope for prostate tissue interpretation: a narrative review.Translational andrology and urology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nerve-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy has decreased the post-surgical complications of prostate surgery, but has not eliminated it. The ability to view the microstructure will enable better surgical decisions and lead to better post-surgical outcomes. An ideal imaging modality should provide rapid image acquisition, be low cost, and be specific to the tissue being examined. This article aims to review the current literature to compare three main techniques: multiphoton microscopy (MPM), optical coherence tomography, and confocal microscopy, to see which of these techniques may be best applied in surgical procedures in the future. Embase and Medline were used as the primary databases. Combinations of various key words were used while researching the literature. These included: "Radical prostatectomy," "nerve-sparing," "nerve mapping," "multiphoton microscopy," "Confocal microscopy," and "Optical Coherence Tomography." Thereafter, the relevant results were selected and used in the review. Although optical coherence tomography is a low cost and compact modality, it lacks cellular resolution, while confocal microscopy offers great cellular resolution but lacks depth. MPM, on the other hand, provides sufficient depth and produces high-resolution images. The limitation of MPM is its lack of portability, however the advent of dual-modality MPM may be a way forward.
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.