ArticleCentral European journal of urology2021
The association of a risk group with positive margin in the intraoperative and final pathology examination after robotic radical prostatectomy.
Article in Central European journal of urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe aim of this study was to evaluate the risk of a positive margin in the intraoperative and final pathology depending on the risk group for biochemical recurrence in biopsy specimens after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RaRP) with sparing of the neurovascular bundles (NS). MATERIAL AND
methodsThe study was prospective and non-randomised. The intraoperative and final pathology examinations were performed in 65 consecutive patients treated with RaRP between 11.2019-08.2020. In the intraoperative examination, the site of the dissected neurovascular bundles and any suspicious places were examined. Patients were divided into 3 risk groups [according to the European Association of Urology (EAU) biochemical recurrence-risk stratification]. Due to the uncertain prognostic value of microscopic positive margins, 3 groups were identified: R0, Rmicro and R1.
resultsIn the intraoperative examination, the distribution of risk groups in R0, Rmicro and R1 groups is similar (p = 0.132). In the postoperative study, the distribution of risk groups in each margin group is different, and is statistically significant (p <0.001). It has been shown that an increase in the risk group is an indicator of the occurrence of a positive margin in the final histopathological result regardless of the inclusion of Rmicro into R1 or into R0 by 2.68 and 6.52 times, respectively.
conclusionsThe preoperative risk group is an important factor for the occurrence of a positive margin, but only in the final examination and not in the intraoperative one. An intraoperative examination of the neurovascular bundles only is pointless and should be extended to the examination of the apex.
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.