ArticleFrontiers in oncology2021
Transvesical Versus Posterior Approach to Retzius-Sparing Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Retrospective Comparison With a 12-Month Follow-Up.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of transperitoneal anterior, retzius-sparing, extraperitoneal, transvesical and perineal approaches on urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2025Pooled it
- Comparative study of each surgical step in radical prostatectomy under 3D and 2D laparoscopy.Frontiers in surgery · 2024Article
- Initial experience and short-term outcomes of single-port extraperitoneal transvesical robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a two-center study.Translational andrology and urology · 2023Article
- Robot-assisted Surgery in the Field of Urology: The Most Pioneering Approaches 2015-2023.Research and reports in urology · 2023Review
- The Efficacy of Urinary Continence in Patients Undergoing Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy with Bladder-Prostatic Muscle Reconstruction and Bladder Neck Eversion Anastomosis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Article
- Bipolar radiofrequency thermotherapy vs. transurethral resection of the prostate: Effect on nocturia as a result of benign prostatic obstruction.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2022Article
- Efficacy of the transvesical approach for robotic-assisted radical prostatectomyFrontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Functional and Oncological Outcomes Following Robot-Assisted and Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy for Localized Prostate Cancer With a Large Prostate Volume: A Retrospective Analysis With Minimum 2-Year Follow-Ups.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- Functional Preservation and Oncologic Control following Robot-Assisted versus Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy for Intermediate- and High-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer: A Propensity Score Matched Analysis.Journal of oncology · 2021Article
- Independent Factors Affecting Postoperative Short-Term Urinary Continence Recovery after Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy.Journal of oncology · 2021Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes of transvesical robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (T-RARP) and posterior robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (P-RARP) for localized prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe analyzed the data of 96 patients who underwent T-RARP or P-RARP for localized prostate cancer between January 2017 and June 2019 in a retrospective fashion.
resultsNo significant differences in the baseline characteristics existed between the T-RARP and P-RARP arms. Both interventions were successfully performed without open conversion in either group. T-RARP was associated with a slightly more operative time (135.3 vs. 127.3 min) and estimated blood loss (105.2 vs. 94.2 mL) than P-RARP, but the differences were not significant (both
conclusionsBoth T-RARP and P-RARP by experienced hands are feasible for well-selected patients with prostate cancer, obtaining similar outcomes in terms of perioperative results, UC and erectile function, and oncological control within short-term follow-up.
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.