Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35848770›Full record

Trial reportThe Journal of urology2022

Effect of 3-Dimensional, Virtual Reality Models for Surgical Planning of Robotic Prostatectomy on Trifecta Outcomes: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Joseph D Shirk, Robert Reiter, Eric M Wallen, Ray Pak, Thomas Ahlering, Ketan K Badani, James R Porter

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The Journal of urology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Visual extended reality tools in image-guided surgery in urology: a systematic review.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2024
    Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Surgical planning in virtual reality: a systematic review.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2024
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. A Safe Framework for Quantitative In Vivo Human Evaluation of Image Guidance.IEEE open journal of engineering in medicine and biology · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

7 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Joseph D ShirkDepartment of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California.
Robert ReiterDepartment of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California.
Eric M WallenDepartment of Urology, UNC Chapel Hill School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Ray PakDepartment of Urology, Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, Florida.
Thomas AhleringDepartment of Urology, University of California-Irvine, Irvine, California.
Ketan K BadaniDepartment of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York.
James R PorterSwedish Medical Center, Seattle, Washington.
GTx (United States) · USIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai · USJacksonville College · USSwedish Medical Center · USUniversity of California, Irvine · USUniversity of California, Los Angeles · USUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePlanning complex operations such as robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy requires surgeons to review 2-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) cross-sectional images to understand 3-dimensional (3D), patient-specific anatomy. We sought to determine surgical outcomes for robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy when surgeons reviewed 3D, virtual reality (VR) models for operative planning. MATERIALS AND

methodsA multicenter, randomized, single-blind clinical trial was conducted from January 2019 to December 2020. Patients undergoing robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy were prospectively enrolled and randomized to either a control group undergoing usual preoperative planning with prostate biopsy results and MRI only or to an intervention group where MRI and biopsy results were supplemented with a 3D VR model. The primary outcome measure was margin status, and secondary outcomes were oncologic control, sexual function and urinary function.

resultsNinety-two patients were analyzed, with trends toward lower positive margin rates (33% vs 25%) in the intervention group, no significant difference in functional outcomes and no difference in traditional operative metrics (p >0.05). Detectable postoperative prostate specific antigen was significantly lower in the intervention group (31% vs 9%, p=0.036). In 32% of intervention cases, the surgeons modified their operative plan based on the model. When this subset was compared to the control group, there was a strong trend toward increased bilateral nerve sparing (78% vs 92%), and a significantly lower rate of postoperative detectable prostate specific antigen in the intervention subset (31% vs 0%, p=0.038).

conclusionsThis randomized clinical trial demonstrated patients whose surgical planning involved 3D VR models have better oncologic outcomes while maintaining functional outcomes.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyProstatic NeoplasmsRobotic Surgical ProceduresVirtual RealityHumansMaleProstatectomyProstate-Specific AntigenSingle-Blind MethodTreatment OutcomeProstate-Specific Antigenprostatic neoplasmsrobotic surgical proceduresvirtual reality

Identifiers

PMID35848770
PMCPMC12721683
OpenAlexW4285730174

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.