Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35265866›Full record

ArticleEuropean urology open science2022

Retzius-sparing Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy in High-risk Prostate Cancer Patients: Results from a Large Single-institution Series.

Paolo Dell'Oglio, Stefano Tappero, Mattia Longoni, Carlo Buratto, Pietro Scilipoti, Silvia Secco, Alberto Olivero, Michele Barbieri, Erika Palagonia, Giancarlo Napoli and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European urology open science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

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

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Paolo Dell'OglioDepartment of Urology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milan, Italy.
Stefano TapperoDepartment of Urology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milan, Italy.
Mattia LongoniDepartment of Urology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milan, Italy.
Carlo BurattoDepartment of Urology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milan, Italy.
Pietro ScilipotiDepartment of Urology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milan, Italy.
Silvia SeccoDepartment of Urology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milan, Italy.
Alberto OliveroDepartment of Urology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milan, Italy.
Michele BarbieriDepartment of Urology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milan, Italy.
Erika PalagoniaDepartment of Urology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milan, Italy.
Giancarlo NapoliDepartment of Urology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milan, Italy.
Elena StradaDepartment of Urology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milan, Italy.
Giovanni PetraliaDepartment of Urology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milan, Italy.
Dario Di TrapaniDepartment of Urology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milan, Italy.
Angelo VanzulliDepartment of Radiology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milan, Italy.
Aldo Massimo BocciardiDepartment of Urology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milan, Italy.
Antonio GalfanoDepartment of Urology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milan, Italy.
Azienda Socio Sanitaria Territoriale Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda · ITOspedale Policlinico San Martino · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Retzius-sparing (RS) robot-assisted radical prostatectomy represents a valid surgical treatment option for prostate cancer (PCa) patients. However, the available evidence on the role of RS in high-risk (HR) PCa setting is sparse. Objective: To describe our RS technique for HR-PCa patients and to evaluate intra-, peri-, and postoperative oncological and functional outcomes. Design setting and participants: A total of 340 D'Amico HR-PCa patients underwent RS at a single high-volume centre between 2011 and 2020. Surgical procedure: Surgical procedures were performed by five experienced robotic surgeons. Measurements: Complications were collected according to the standardised methodology proposed by the European Association of Urology guidelines. Postoperative outcomes were evaluated in patients with complete follow-up data ( Results and limitations: Fourteen patients (4%) experienced intraoperative complications and 52 90-d complications occurred in 44 patients (14%), of whom 24 had Clavien-Dindo 3a/b. Final pathology reported 49% International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade 4-5, 55% ≥pT3a, and 28.8% positive surgical margins (PSMs; 9.4% focal and 19.4% extended PSMs). The median follow-up was 47 mo. Overall, 35.3% and 1.3% harboured BCR and died from PCa. At 4 yr of follow-up, BCR-free survival and additional treatment-free survival were 63.6% and 56.6%, respectively. ISUP 4-5 at biopsy (odds ratio [OR]: 2.6), prostate volume (OR: 1.03), partial or full nerve sparing (OR: 1.9), and full bladder neck preservation (OR: 2.2) were independent predictors of PSMs. Pathological ISUP 4-5 (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.5) and PSMs (HR: 2.3) were independent predictors of BCR. Pathological ISUP 4-5 (HR: 1.5), PSMs (HR: 2.4), pT ≥3b (HR: 1.8), and pN ≥1 (HR: 1.8) were independent predictors of additional treatment. Immediate UC recovery was recorded in 53% patients. The 1- and 2-yr UC recovery and erectile function recovery were, respectively, 84% and 85%, and 43% and 50%. Conclusions: RS in HR-PCa patients allows optimal intra-, peri-, and postoperative outcomes. The RS approach should be considered a valid surgical treatment option for HR-PCa patients in expert hands. Patient summary: Relying on the largest cohort of high-risk prostate cancer patients treated with Retzius sparing (RS), we observed that the RS approach is safe and allows optimal cancer control, without significantly compromising functional outcomes.

Indexed as

Complication reportingFunctional outcomesHigh-risk prostate cancerRetzius sparingRobot-assisted radical prostatectomy

Identifiers

PMID35265866
PMCPMC8898917
OpenAlexW4220706478

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.