Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32222811›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2021

Robot-assisted simple prostatectomy versus open simple prostatectomy: a single-center comparison.

R Dotzauer, A La Torre, A Thomas, M P Brandt, K Böhm, R Mager, H Borgmann, W Jäger, M Kurosch, T Höfner and 3 more

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 8 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  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

13 authors.

R DotzauerDepartment of Urology, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany. robert.dotzauer@unimedizin-mainz.de.
A La TorreDepartment of Urology, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany.
A ThomasDepartment of Urology, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany.
M P BrandtDepartment of Urology, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany.
K BöhmDepartment of Urology, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany.
R MagerDepartment of Urology, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany.
H BorgmannDepartment of Urology, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany.
W JägerDepartment of Urology, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany.
M KuroschDepartment of Urology, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany.
T HöfnerDepartment of Urology, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany.
C RuckesInterdisciplinary Centre for Clinical Trials (IZKS), University Medical Centre of the Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
A HaferkampDepartment of Urology, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany.
I TsaurDepartment of Urology, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeOpen simple prostatectomy (OSP) is a standard surgical technique for patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia with prostate size larger than 80 ml. As a minimally invasive approach, robot-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) emerged as a feasible surgical alternative. Currently, there are no definite recommendations for the standard use of RASP. Therefore, we aimed at investigating various clinical outcomes comparing RASP with OSP.

methodsIn this retrospective single-center study, we evaluated clinical data from 103 RASP and 31 OSP patients. Both cohorts were compared regarding different clinical characteristics with and without propensity score matching. To detect independent predictive factors for clinical outcomes, multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed.

resultsRobot-assisted simple prostatectomy patients demonstrated a lower estimated blood loss and need for postoperative blood transfusions as well as less postoperative complications. OSP had a shorter operative time (125 min vs. 182 min) longer hospital stay (11 days vs. 9 days) and longer time to catheter removal (8 days vs. 6 days). In the multivariate analysis, RASP was identified as an independent predictor for longer operative time, lower estimated blood loss, shorter length of hospital stay, shorter time to catheter removal, less postoperative complications and blood transfusions.

conclusionRobot-assisted simple prostatectomy is a safe alternative to OSP with less perioperative and postoperative morbidity. Whether OSP (shorter operative time) or RASP (shorter length of hospital stay) has a more favorable economic impact depends on the particular conditions of different health care systems. Further prospective comparative research is warranted to define the value of RASP in the current surgical management of benign prostatic hyperplasia.

Indexed as

Robotic Surgical ProceduresAgedHumansMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsProstatectomyProstatic HyperplasiaRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeAdenoma enucleationComplicationsMinimal invasive simple prostatectomyOutcome

Identifiers

PMID32222811
PMCPMC7858208

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.