ReviewBJUI compass2020
Review of the use of prophylactic drain tubes post-robotic radical prostatectomy: Dogma or decent practice?
Review in BJUI compass, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effect of placing prophylactic abdominal drainage tube after hepatobiliary surgery on postoperative infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis.International wound journal · 2024Article
- Assessment of routine same-day discharge surgery for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.World journal of urology · 2023Article
- Surgical Drain-Related Small Bowel Obstruction After Open Radical Cystoprostatectomy: A Case Report.Cureus · 2023Article
- Complications of extraperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in high-risk prostate cancer: A single high-volume center experience.Frontiers in surgery · 2023Article
- Attention to detail.BJUI compass · 2020Article
- Review of the use of prophylactic drain tubes post-robotic radical prostatectomy: Dogma or decent practice?BJUI compass · 2020Review
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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To assess the necessity of routine prophylactic drain tube use following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Method: We performed a literature review using the Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science databases with no restriction of language from January 1900 to January 2020. The following terms we used in the literature search: prostatectomy, radical prostatectomy, robot assisted, drainage, and drain tube. Results: We identified six studies that examined the use of routine prophylactic drain tubes following RARP. One of these studies was a randomized study that included 189 patients, with 97 in the pelvic drain (PD) arm and 92 in the no pelvic drain (ND) arm. This non-inferiority showed an early (90-day) complication rate of 17.4% in the ND arm versus 26.8% in the PD arm ( Conclusion: Drain tubes play a role during robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy, however, following a review of the current available literature, they can be safely omitted and we suggest that clinicians may be selective in their use.
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.