ArticleInvestigative and clinical urology2022
Modified apical dissection improves early continence in robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Comparative study between modified apical dissection and anterior suspension stitch.
Article in Investigative and clinical urology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Modified apical dissection during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Patient-reported early continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in elderly men.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Demonstration of anatomical and technical details of robotic laparoscopic radical prostatectomy as described in the current literature.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- [Surgical techniques to improve continence after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy based on video-anatomy-a review].Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Review
- Surgical techniques for enhancing postoperative urinary continence in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a comprehensive review.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2025Review
- Application of anatomic reconstruction technique for periurethral structure in robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeRecently, the modified apical dissection (MAD) technique in robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RARP) has shown excellent functional outcomes but has never been rigorously validated at various institutions. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of MAD on early continence and potency compared with the anterior suspension stitch (SS) technique. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 100 patients who underwent RARP with SS and 100 who underwent RARP with MAD by a single surgeon were propensity score matched and retrospectively compared for continence and potency recovery at 1 week and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months.
resultsContinence was reached in 20.6%, 33.3%, 67.2%, 74.1%, 81.1%, and 83.0% of patients in the SS group, compared with 49.2%, 73.3%, 86.8%, 96.6%, 100.0%, and 100.0% in the MAD group at postoperative 1 week and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months, respectively. In the SS group, potency rates were 0.0%, 20.0%, 50.0%, 66.7%, 75.0%, and 83.3%; in the MAD group, the rates were 50.0%, 90.0%, 88.9%, 100.0%, 100.0%, and 100.0%. Recovery of continence was higher in the MAD group within the first 6 months (p=0.005, <0.010, 0.041, 0.016 at 1 week, 1, 3, and 6 months). There were no significant differences in potency recovery rates between the two groups (all p≥0.05).
conclusionsThe MAD technique results in earlier recovery of continence compared with the SS technique.
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.