ArticleScientific reports2020
Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with clipless intrafascial neurovascular bundle-sparing approach: surgical technique and one-year functional and oncologic outcomes.
Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Learning curves of 13 surgeons for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in a single institution: role of early case density.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Next-Generation Nerve-Sparing Techniques in Robotic Radical Prostatectomy: A Contemporary Review.Current urology reports · 2025Review
- Clipless robot-assisted Retzius-sparing radical prostatectomy: a study on its safety profile and outcomes.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Long-Term Oncological Outcomes after Nerve-Sparing Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy for High-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer: A Single-Center, Two-Arm Prospective Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Monitoring the delicate operations of surgical robots via ultra-sensitive ionic electronic skin.National science review · 2022Article
- Nerve-sparing Techniques During Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Clips or Low-energy Bipolar Coagulation? Low Energy.European urology open science · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Various neurovascular bundle-sparing techniques have been introduced to maximize recovery of erectile function after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). The clipless intrafascial neurovascular bundle-sparing technique aims to preserve periprostatic structures and neurovascular bundles as much as possible by avoiding clipping of the vascular pedicles. This study reports 1-year functional and oncologic outcomes and postoperative complications in 105 patients with intact preoperative erectile function who underwent a modified clipless intrafascial neurovascular bundle-sparing RARP. Intact erectile function was defined as score ≥ 21 on the Sexual Health Inventory for Men questionnaire or ability to have sexual intercourse. Median follow-up was 26.5 months (IQR 15.25-48). Postoperative erectile function recovery rates were 71.4%, 81.9%, 88.6%, 92.4%, and 94.3% at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months, respectively. The rate of positive surgical margins was 16.2% overall and 11.8% in patients with stage pT2 disease. The biochemical recurrence rate was 6.7% overall. The modified clipless intrafascial neurovascular bundle-sparing technique is safe and feasible and can achieve excellent recovery of erectile function after RARP. Further large-scale prospective comparative studies are warranted.
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.