ArticleEuropean urology focus2022
Clipless Robotic-assisted Radical Prostatectomy and Impact on Outcomes.
Article in European urology focus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of peritoneal reconfiguration on lymphocele formation after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2024Pooled it
- Article
- Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy haemostasis techniques and outcomes.Nature reviews. Urology · 2025Article
- Clipless robot-assisted Retzius-sparing radical prostatectomy: a study on its safety profile and outcomes.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Technical surgical skill assessment of neurovascular bundle dissection and urinary continence recovery after robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy.JU open plus · 2023Article
- Nerve-sparing Techniques During Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Clips or Low-energy Bipolar Coagulation? Low Energy.European urology open science · 2022Article
- Nerve-sparing Techniques During Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Clips.European urology open science · 2022Article
- Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: Advancements in surgical technique and perioperative care.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe use of surgical clips for athermal dissection of the lateral prostatic pedicles and ligation during pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) while performing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) has been the gold standard. Clips are used to prevent thermal injury of the unmyelinated nerve fibers and lymphceles, respectively.
objectiveTo compare oncological and functional outcomes of a new technique of clipless, lateral pedicle control and PLND with RARP with bipolar energy (RARP-bi) versus the standard RARP technique with clips (RARP-c). DESIGN, SETTING, AND
participantsA retrospective study was conducted among 338 men who underwent RARP between July 2018 and March 2020. SURGICAL PROCEDURE: RARP-c versus RARP-bi. MEASUREMENTS: We prospectively collected data and retrospectively compared demographic, clinicopathological, and functional outcome data. Urinary as well as sexual function was assessed using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index for Clinical Practice, and complications were assessed using Clavien-Dindo grading. Multivariable regression modeling was used to examine whether the technical approach of RARP-bi versus RARP-c was associated with positive surgical margins (PSMs) or sexual and urinary function scores. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 144 (43%) and 194 (57%) men underwent RARP-bi and RARP-c, respectively. Overall, there were no differences in functional and oncological outcomes between the two approaches. On multivariable regression analysis, the RARP-bi technique was not associated with significant differences in PSMs (odds ratio [OR] = 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.6-1.8; p = 0.9), sexual function (OR = 0.4, 95% CI 0.1-1.5; p = 0.8), or urinary function (OR = 0.5, 95% CI 0.2-1.4; p = 0.2). The overall 30-d complication rates (12% vs 16%, p = 0.5) and bladder neck contracture rates (2.1% vs 3.6%, p = 0.5) were similar between the two groups. There was no difference in lymphocele complications (1.4% vs 0.52%, p = 0.58). All complications were of Clavien-Dindo grade I-II.
conclusionsDespite the concerns for an increased risk of nerve injury secondary to the use of bipolar energy for prostatic pedicle dissection, we demonstrate that this technique is oncologically and functionally similar to the standard approach with surgical clips. There was no difference in complications or lymphocele formation for techniques with versus without clips. PATIENT SUMMARY: We describe a modified technique for prostatic pedicle dissection during robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy, which utilizes bipolar energy and is associated with shorter operative time, without compromising functional or oncological outcomes.
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.