ArticleCancers2022
Development and Implementation of an Advanced Program for Robotic Treatment of Prostate Cancer-Is Surgical Quality Transferable?
Article in Cancers, 2022. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is a surgical treatment option for prostate cancer (PC). Quality in RARP depends on the surgeon´s operative volume and expertise. When implementing RARP, it is standard practice to hire a pre-trained surgeon. The aim of our study was to investigate the transferability of quality in RARP. Patients and Methods: We analyzed two consecutive retrospective cohorts of 100 and 108 men, respectively, who underwent RARP at two different centers and on whom surgery was performed by the same surgeon. Results: There were more men with high-grade PC in Cohort 1: 25/100 (25.0%) vs. 9/108 (8.3%), p < 0.01, and infiltration of the seminal vesicles was more frequent (23/100 (23.0%) vs. 10/108 (9.2%), p < 0.01). In Cohort 2, the duration of surgery was shorter and blood loss was lower: 149 (134−174) vs. 172 min (150−196), p < 0.01 and 300 (200−400) vs. 131 (99−188) mL, p < 0.01. No difference was found in the proportion of positive surgical margins in the T2 cohort (8.8% vs. 8.2%, p = 1.00). Conclusion: The procedural and oncological outcome parameters of Cohort 2 do not appear to be inferior to the results obtained for the first cohort. The quality of RARP is transferable if a pre-trained surgeon is hired.
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.