Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34135173›Full record

ArticleAsian journal of andrology

A comparison of perioperative outcomes between extraperitoneal robotic single-port and multiport radical prostatectomy with the da Vinci Si Surgical System.

Guan-Qun Ju, Zhi-Jun Wang, Jia-Zi Shi, Zong-Qin Zhang, Zhen-Jie Wu, Lei Yin, Bing Liu, Lin-Hui Wang, Dong-Liang Xu

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Asian journal of andrology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Guan-Qun JuDepartment of Urology, Changzheng Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai 200003, China.
Zhi-Jun WangDepartment of Urology, Changzheng Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai 200003, China.
Jia-Zi ShiDepartment of Urology, Changzheng Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai 200003, China.
Zong-Qin ZhangDepartment of Urology, Changzheng Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai 200003, China.
Zhen-Jie WuDepartment of Urology, Changzheng Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai 200003, China.
Lei YinDepartment of Urology, Changzheng Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai 200003, China.
Bing LiuDepartment of Urology, Changzheng Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai 200003, China.
Lin-Hui WangDepartment of Urology, Changzheng Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai 200003, China.
Dong-Liang XuDepartment of Urology, Changzheng Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai 200003, China.
Shanghai Changzheng Hospital · CNSecond Military Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To evaluate outcomes between extraperitoneal robotic single-port radical prostatectomy (epR-spRP) and extraperitoneal robotic multiport radical prostatectomy (epR-mpRP) performed with the da Vinci Si Surgical System, comparison was performed between 30 single-port (SP group) and 26 multiport (MP group) cases. Comparisons included operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), hospital stay, peritoneal violation, pain scores, scar satisfaction, continence, and erectile function. The median operation time and EBL were not different between the two groups. In the SP group, the median operation time of the first 10 patients was obviously longer than that of the latter 20 patients (P < 0.001). The median postoperative hospital stay in the SP group was shorter than that in the MP group (P < 0.001). The rate of peritoneal damage in the SP group was less than that in the MP group (P = 0.017). The pain score and overall need for pain medications in the SP group were lower than those in the MP group (P < 0.001 and P = 0.015, respectively). Patients in the SP group were more satisfied with their scars than those in the MP group 3 months postoperatively (P = 0.007). At 3 months, the cancer control, recovery of erectile function, and urinary continence rates were similar between the two groups. It is safe and feasible to perform epR-spRP using the da Vinci Si surgical system. Therefore, epR-spRP can be a treatment option for localized prostate cancer. Although epR-spRP still has a learning curve, it has advantages for postoperative pain and self-assessed cosmesis. In the absence of the single-port robotic surgery platform, we can still provide minimally invasive surgery for patients.

Indexed as

AgedBlood Loss, SurgicalHumansMaleMiddle AgedOutcome Assessment, Health CarePerioperative MedicineProstatectomyProstatic NeoplasmsQuality Assurance, Health CareRobotic Surgical Proceduresextraperitoneal approachminimally invasive surgeryprostate cancerrobotic radical prostatectomysingle-port

Identifiers

PMID34135173
PMCPMC8577263
OpenAlexW3167182670

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.