Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33573861›Full record

Trial reportEuropean urology2021

Robotic-assisted Versus Laparoscopic Surgery: Outcomes from the First Multicentre, Randomised, Patient-blinded Controlled Trial in Radical Prostatectomy (LAP-01).

Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg, Sigrun Holze, Petra Neuhaus, Iason Kyriazis, Hoang Minh Do, Anja Dietel, Michael C Truss, Corinn I Grzella, Dogu Teber, Markus Hohenfellner and 3 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in European urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Transfusion Risk in Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic-Assisted Surgery: A Propensity Score Matched Case-Control Study across Surgical Disciplines.Transfusion medicine and hemotherapy : offizielles Organ der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Transfusionsmedizin und Immunhamatologie · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Jens-Uwe StolzenburgDepartment of Urology, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany. Electronic address: Jens-Uwe.Stolzenburg@medizin.uni-leipzig.de.
Sigrun HolzeDepartment of Urology, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Petra NeuhausClinical Trial Centre Leipzig, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Iason KyriazisDepartment of Urology, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany; Department of Urology, University Hospital of Patras, Rio, Greece.
Hoang Minh DoDepartment of Urology, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany; Department of Urology, Sana Hospital Borna, Borna, Germany.
Anja DietelDepartment of Urology, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Michael C TrussDepartment of Urology, Klinikum Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany.
Corinn I GrzellaDepartment of Urology, Klinikum Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany.
Dogu TeberDepartment of Urology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany; Department of Urology, Staedtisches Klinikum Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe, Germany.
Markus HohenfellnerDepartment of Urology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Robert RabenaltDepartment of Urology, University of Duesseldorf, Duesseldorf, Germany; Department of Urology, Marien Hospital Duesseldorf, Duesseldorf, Germany.
Peter AlbersDepartment of Urology, University of Duesseldorf, Duesseldorf, Germany.
Meinhard MendeClinical Trial Centre Leipzig, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany; Institute for Medical Informatics, Statistics and Epidemiology University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe LAP-01 trial was designed to address the lack of high-quality literature comparing robotic-assisted (RARP) and laparoscopic (LRP) radical prostatectomy.

objectiveTo compare the functional and oncological outcomes between RARP and LRP at 3 mo of follow-up. DESIGN, SETTING, AND

participantsIn this multicentre, randomised, patient-blinded controlled trial, patients referred for radical prostatectomy to four hospitals in Germany were randomly assigned (3:1) to undergo either RARP or LRP. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary outcome was time to continence recovery at 3 mo based on the patient's pad diary. Secondary outcomes included continence and potency as well as quality of life in addition to oncological outcomes for up to 3 yr of follow-up. Time to continence was analysed by log-rank test and depicted by the Kaplan-Meier method. Continuous measurements were analysed by means of linear mixed models. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 782 patients were randomised. The primary endpoint was evaluable in 718 patients (547 RARPs; full analysis set). At 3 mo, the difference in continence rates was 8.7% in favour of RARP (54% vs 46%, p =  0.027). RARP remained superior to LRP even after adjustment for the randomisation stratum nerve sparing and age >65 yr (hazard ratio = 1.40 [1.09-1.81], p =  0.008). A significant benefit in early potency recovery was also identified, while similar oncological and morbidity outcomes were documented. It is a limitation that the influence of different anastomotic techniques was not investigated in this study.

conclusionsRARP resulted in significantly better continence recovery at 3 mo. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this randomised trial, we looked at the outcomes following radical prostate surgery in a large German population. We conclude that patients undergoing robotic prostatectomy had better continence than those undergoing laparoscopic surgery when assessed at 3 mo following surgery. Age and the nerve-sparing technique further affected continence restoration.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyProstatic NeoplasmsRobotic Surgical ProceduresHumansMaleProstateProstatectomyQuality of LifeTreatment OutcomeContinenceLaparoscopic prostatectomyMulticentre randomised trialProstate cancerProstatectomyRobotic-assisted prostatectomy

Identifiers

PMID33573861

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.