ArticleWorld journal of urology2021
Athermal versus ultrasonic nerve-sparing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a comparison of functional and oncological outcomes.
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 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Is there any difference in urinary continence between bilateral and unilateral nerve sparing during radical prostatectomy? A systematic review and meta-analysis.World journal of surgical oncology · 2024Pooled it
- Different Nerve-Sparing Techniques during Radical Prostatectomy and Their Impact on Functional Outcomes.Cancers · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMany urologists emphasize the concept of heat-related damage suggesting the avoidance of any energy to perform nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. At our institution, both athermal and ultrasonic dissection have been used over the last years to perform a nerve-sparing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (NSLRP). In this study, we compare functional and oncological outcomes of the two procedures.
methodsAll charts from patients undergoing NSLRP between January 2009 and June 2015 were reviewed. The International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) was recorded preoperatively and 3, 12 and 24 months after surgery; continence was recorded at 3 and 12 months; PSA was recorded at last follow-up. Uni- and multivariate analyses were performed to assess the association of variables with functional and oncological outcomes.
resultsUltrasonic NSLRP was used for 120 patients, while athermal NSLRP on 111. The impact of the cutting technique on erection recovery was different at 3 months, favoring athermal dissection (p = 0.002); however, significance was lost at 12 (p = 0.09) and 24 (p = 0.14) months. Continence recovery was comparable at 3 (p = 0.1) and 12 (p = 0.2) months; the rate of positive surgical margins and PSA recurrence were also similar (p = 0.2 and p = 0.06, respectively). At univariate analysis, age, Gleason sum, nerve-sparing laterality, and extension (intra- vs interfascial) were associated with overall erection recovery; only age and nerve-sparing laterality were independent predictors. Age and preoperative TRUS prostate volume were associated with continence recovery, both at uni- and multivariate analysis.
conclusionsThe use of an ultrasonic device compared to athermal dissection during NSLRP does not affect long-term potency, nor continence and early biochemical recurrence.
Indexed as
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.