Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32497131›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Comparison of perioperative outcomes in elderly (age ≧ 75 years) vs. younger men undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

Yuta Yamada, Taro Teshima, Tetsuya Fujimura, Yusuke Sato, Masaki Nakamura, Aya Niimi, Naoki Kimura, Shigenori Kakutani, Taketo Kawai, Daisuke Yamada and 2 more

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

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

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

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

12 authors.

Yuta YamadaDepartment of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-9698-4301
Taro TeshimaDepartment of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
Tetsuya FujimuraDepartment of Urology, Jichi Medical University, Shimotsuke-shi, Tochigi-ken, Japan.
Yusuke SatoDepartment of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
Masaki NakamuraDepartment of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
Aya NiimiDepartment of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
Naoki KimuraDepartment of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
Shigenori KakutaniDepartment of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
Taketo KawaiDepartment of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
Daisuke YamadaDepartment of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
Motofumi SuzukiDepartment of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
Haruki KumeDepartment of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo investigate perioperative, oncologic, and functional outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in men of age ≥ 75 years in comparison with younger men.

methodsFrom November 2011 to December 2018, six hundred and thirty patients with prostate cancer underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). A total of 614 patients were analyzed after excluding 16 patients who were treated with hormone therapy prior to RARP. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on their age (age ≥ 75 years: N = 46 patients and age < 75 years: N = 568 patients). Perioperative parameters regarding oncologic/functional outcomes and complication status were compared between the 2 groups. Clavien-Dindo classification was used to classify perioperative complications. Clinical and pathological status including stage, positive margin, continence, and potency status after RARP were analyzed.

resultsFive-hundred sixty-eight and forty-six men were of age <75 and ≥ 75 years, respectively. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in terms of oncologic outcomes (positive resection margin rate and PSA failure). The duration of hospitalization was longer in older patients but was not statistically significant (P = 0.051). A total number of Clavien ≥3 complications that occurred within a month after RARP were 15 (2.6%) and 2 (4.3%) in younger men (age < 75 years) and older men (age ≥ 75 years), respectively (P = 0.359).

conclusionThe present study showed that the oncologic and surgical outcomes in the elderly group were similar to those in the younger population. However, the duration of hospitalization seemed to be longer in older patients (age ≥ 75 years), despite similar complication rates.

Indexed as

Perioperative PeriodProstatectomyRobotic Surgical ProceduresAgedHumansMaleProstatic NeoplasmsTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID32497131
PMCPMC7272059

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.