SynthesisBMC urology2020
Comparison of Retzius-sparing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy vs standard robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC urology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 4 of them syntheses 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Perioperative and functional outcomes of Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy vs. conventional robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: evidence based on randomized-controlled trials.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Comparison of Retzius-sparing and conventional robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy regarding continence and sexual function: an updated meta-analysis.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Comparison of Retzius-Sparing Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy vs. Conventional Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: An Up-to-Date Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2021Pooled it
- Retzius-Sparing Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Analysis of Functional and Oncological Outcomes.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Retzius-sparing robotic radical prostatectomy: Insights and outcomes from the UAE experience.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Transition from standard robotic prostatectomy to Retzius-sparing prostatectomy: feasibility and early outcomes.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Article
- Incremental modification of robotic prostatectomy technique can lead to aggregated marginal gains to significantly improve functional outcomes without compromising oncological control.Journal of robotic surgery · 2022Article
- Anatomical Fundamentals and Current Surgical Knowledge of Prostate Anatomy Related to Functional and Oncological Outcomes for Robotic-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy.Frontiers in surgery · 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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo compare the postoperative continence and clinical outcomes of Retzius-sparing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RS-RALP) with non-RS RALP for patients with prostate cancer.
methodsWe searched PUBMED, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register from 1999 to 2019 for studies comparing RS-RALP to non-RS RALP for the treatment of prostate cancer. We used RevMan 5.2 to pool the data.
resultsA total of seven studies involving 1620 patients were included in our meta-analysis. No significant difference was found in positive surgical margins (PSM), bilateral nerve-sparing, postoperative hernia, complications, blood loss, or operative time. Postoperative continence was better with RS-RALP compared with non-RS RALP (OR = 1.02, OR: 2.86, 95% CI 1.94-4.20, p < 0.05).
conclusionsRS-RALP had a better recovery of postoperative continence than non-RS RALP. The perioperative outcomes were comparable for the two methods.
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.