Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33569267›Full record

ReviewAsian journal of urology2021

Nerve-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: Current perspectives.

Anup Kumar, Vipul R Patel, Sridhar Panaiyadiyan, Kulthe Ramesh Seetharam Bhat, Marcio Covas Moschovas, Brusabhanu Nayak

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Asian journal of urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Advances in Techniques in Radical Prostatectomy.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Artificial intelligence: revolutionizing robotic surgery: review.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2024
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Robotic surgery in urology: Recent advances.Asian journal of urology · 2023
    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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Anup KumarDepartment of Urology,Robotics and Renal Transplant, Vardhman Mahaveer Medical College and Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi, India.
Vipul R PatelDepartment of Robotic Surgery, AdventHealth Global Robotics Institute, Celebration, FL, USA.
Sridhar PanaiyadiyanDepartment of Urology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Kulthe Ramesh Seetharam BhatDepartment of Robotic Surgery, AdventHealth Global Robotics Institute, Celebration, FL, USA.
Marcio Covas MoschovasDepartment of Robotic Surgery, AdventHealth Global Robotics Institute, Celebration, FL, USA.
Brusabhanu NayakDepartment of Urology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
AdventHealth Celebration · USAll India Institute of Medical Sciences · INSafdarjang Hospital · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is the current standard of care with long term cure in organ-confined disease. The introduction of nerve-sparing (NS) to standard RARP has shown positive results in terms of functional outcomes in addition to the oncological outcomes. This article reviews the current perspectives of NS-RARP in terms of applied anatomy of the prostatic fascial planes, the neurovascular bundle (NVB), various NS techniques and postoperative functional outcomes. A non-systematic review was done using PubMed, Embase and Medline databases to retrieve and analyse articles in English, with following keywords "prostate cancer", "robotic radical prostatectomy", "nerve-sparing". The Delphi method was used with an expert panel of robotic surgeons in urology to analyse the potency outcomes of various published comparative and non-comparative studies. The literature has shown that NS-RARP involves various techniques and approaches while there is a lack of randomized studies to suggest the superiority of one over the other. Variables such as preoperative risk assessments, baseline potency, surgical anatomy of individual patients and surgeons' expertise play a major role in the outcomes. A tailored approach for each patient is required for applying the NS approach during RARP.

Indexed as

Nerve-sparingProstatectomyRobot-assisted radical prostatectomy

Identifiers

PMID33569267
PMCPMC7859364
OpenAlexW3035509119

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.