ReviewBJU international2022
Posterior musculofascial reconstruction in robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy for the treatment of clinically localised prostate cancer: a Cochrane Review.
Review in BJU international, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- A matched-analysis on short-term and long-term (up to 5 years of follow-up) urinary incontinence outcomes after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with and without anterior and posterior reconstruction: data on 1358 patients.International urology and nephrology · 2024Article
- Reproducibility of a modified posterior reconstruction during robotic intracorporeal neobladder reconfiguration.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the effects of posterior musculofascial reconstruction robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (PR-RALP) compared to no PR during standard RALP (S-RALP) for the treatment of clinically localised prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe performed a systematic search with no restrictions including randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing variations of PR-RALP vs S-RALP for clinically localised prostate cancer. The quality of evidence was assessed on outcome basis according to Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Our search identified 13 records of eight unique RCTs, of which six were published studies, and two were abstract proceedings. There were 1085 randomised patients, of whom 963 completed the trials. All patients had either cT1c or cT2 or cT3a disease.
resultsA PR-RALP may improve urinary continence 1 week after catheter removal compared to no PR (risk ratio [RR] 1.25, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.90-1.73; I
conclusionsThis review found evidence that PR-RALP may improve early continence 1 week after catheter removal but not thereafter. Meanwhile, adverse event rates are probably not impacted and positive surgical margin rates are likely similar. There was no difference in our subgroup analysis for all outcomes with anterior reconstruction technique when combined with PR vs only PR.
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.