ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2021
Laparoendoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP): stepwise transition from multi-site to single-site with the aid of the transurethral port.
Article in International urology and nephrology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo describe our initial experience with laparoendoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and a stepwise transition towards transurethral assisted laparoendoscopic single-site RP (TU-LESS RP). PATIENTS AND
methodsFrom Jan. 2007 to Dec. 2016, 195 patients underwent RP, of which 89 patients were performed by LRP (Group A), 106 by TU-LESS RP (Group B). The peri-operative data were collected and analyzed. All data referring to patient demographics, surgery, pathology, and peri-operative outcomes were recorded. The cosmetic result was investigated by the Patient Scar Assessment Questionnaire (PSAQ). Analysis of variance or Chi squared test were adopted to analyze the data.
results195 procedures were completed successfully. The operation time (109.6 ± 31.9 vs. 151.5 ± 87.3, P = 0.025) and anastomosis time (10.1 ± 4.8 vs. 21.8 ± 9.9, P < 0.001) of Group B was significantly reduced compared with Group A. Estimated blood loss in Group B was significantly lower than that in Group A (95.9 ± 11.1 vs. 180.2 ± 99.7, P = 0.006). About perioperative complications, Group B was also less compared with Group A (1.9% vs. 7.9%, P = 0.047). As to the usage of postoperative analgesics, Group B apparently used less than that in Group A (6.6% vs. 62.9%, P < 0.001), which is consistent with the visual analogue scale (VAS) of the two groups (1.7 ± 1.3 vs. 7.8 ± 1.1, P < 0.001). Patients in Group B were significantly more satisfied with incision healing than in group A (74.9 ± 9.3 vs. 49.7 ± 5.8, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference both in BCR rate and time between Group B and Group A. In urination control, more patients in Group B did not have urinary incontinence 3 month after RP compared with Group A (81.1% vs. 67.4%, P = 0.028).
conclusionsLESS RP is proved to be feasible for the proper patients, but it is difficult to popularized due to inconvenient operation. While by means of TU-LESS, operating difficulty can be significantly decreased. TU-LESS RP will be wildly accepted by surgeons and patients because of cosmetic satisfaction and quicker recovery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32902797What 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.