SynthesisProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2022
Comparison of Retzius-sparing and conventional robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy regarding continence and sexual function: an updated meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- 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
- Cytoreductive radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy for metastases prostate cancer: Evidence from meta-analysis.Medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety evaluation of imidafenacin administered twice daily for continency recovery following radical prostatectomy in prostate cancer patients: Prospective open-label case-controlled randomized trial.Investigative and clinical urology · 2024Trial
- Recent Advances in Diagnosing and Treating Post-Prostatectomy Urinary Incontinence.Annals of surgical oncology · 2024Review
- Article
- Comparison of senhance and da vinci robotic radical prostatectomy: short-term outcomes, learning curve, and cost analysis.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2024Article
- Impact of modified bladder neck suspension on early recovery of continence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP).Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Article
- Retzius-sparing vs. standard robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for clinically localised prostate cancer: a comparative study.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2023Article
- Impact of Robotic Technologies on Prostate Cancer Patients' Choice for Radical Treatment.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Single-Port Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Where Do We Stand?Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Review
- Latest Evidence on Post-Prostatectomy Urinary Incontinence.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Preliminary comparison of the modified extraperitoneal free-PORT single incision technique and transabdominal multi-incision robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Predictors of trainees' proficiency during the learning curve of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy at high- -volume institutions: results from a multicentric series.Central European journal of urology · 2023Article
- 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
- Review
- [Clinically localized prostate cancer: Retzius-sparing vs. retropubic robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
abstact
backgroundStudies comparing C-RARP and RS-RARP have reported different results and the choice between the two operation methods remains controversia.
methodsWe present the meta-analysis on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines. The meta-analysis was carried out using Review Manager 5.3 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, United Kingdom) and Stata SE 14.0. The mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to describe the results of continuous data; odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI were used to describe dichotomous data. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05.
resultsThe meta-analysis revealed that RS-RARP had a statistically significant advantage in terms of continence recovery immediately after operation (OR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.20-0.77; P = 0.007) (Fig. 2a), after 1 month (OR: 0.17, 95% CI: 0.10-0.29; P < 0.00001) (Fig. 2b), after 3 months (OR: 0.18, 95% CI: 0.09-0.36; P < 0.00001) (Fig. 2c), after 6 months (OR: 0.26, 95% CI: 0.15-0.46; P < 0.00001) (Fig. 2d) and after 12 months (OR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.28-0.89; P = 0.02) (Fig. 2e).
conclusionsThis meta-analysis found that RS-RARP had better postoperative continence recovery than C-RARP, while sexual function recovery rates were not significantly different. There were also no significant differences in operation time, intraoperative blood loss, length of stay, positive margin rate and complications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34697432What 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.