Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31807424›Full record

ArticleTranslational andrology and urology2019

Perioperative outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and open radical prostatectomy: 10 years of cases at Ramathibodi Hospital.

Kun Sirisopana, Pocharapong Jenjitranant, Premsant Sangkum, Kittinut Kijvikai, Suthep Pacharatakul, Charoen Leenanupun, Wachira Kochakarn, Wisoot Kongchareonsombat

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Translational andrology and urology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

8 authors.

Kun SirisopanaDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Pocharapong JenjitranantDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Premsant SangkumDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Kittinut KijvikaiDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Suthep PacharatakulDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Police Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand.
Charoen LeenanupunDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Wachira KochakarnDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Wisoot KongchareonsombatDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study aims to compare the perioperative and pathological outcomes of open radical prostatectomy (ORP), laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP), and robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALRP) at Ramathibodi Hospital within Mahidol University in Thailand.

methodsFrom January 2008 to July 2017, 679 RPs were performed. Patients' data were collected retrospectively to evaluate their perioperative and pathological outcomes. This data included the age, body mass index (BMI), serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) level, clinical stage, Gleason score (GS) from biopsy, operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), perioperative complications, blood transfusion rate, adjacent organ injury rate, length of hospital stay, pathological stage, GS of the biopsy specimen, specimen weight (g), and marginal status of the patients.

resultsOf the 679 RPs performed, 128 (19.28%) were ORPs, 241 (36.30%) were LRPs, and 295 (44.43%) were RALRPs. Patients who underwent a RALRP had a significant advantage in EBL (1,600, 500, and 300 mL for ORPs, LRPs, and RALRPs, respectively), overall complications, and blood transfusion rate. As they are minimally invasive techniques, LRP and RALRP presented an advantage in terms of the length of hospital stay (an average of 9, 6, and 6 days for ORPs, LRPs, and RALRPs, respectively) and adjacent organ injury rate. ORPs also had the shortest operative time (160, 210, and 200 min for ORPs, LRPs, and RALRPs, respectively). However, the specimen weight and marginal status were similar in all of the techniques.

conclusionsMinimally invasive RP techniques, such as LRPs and RALRPs, appear to be safe, have significantly better perioperative outcomes than ORPs, and have comparable pathological outcomes to those of ORPs.

Indexed as

laparoscopyopen surgeryperioperative outcomeProstate cancerradical prostatectomyrobot-assisted laparoscopic surgery

Identifiers

PMID31807424
PMCPMC6842787

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.