ArticleTranslational andrology and urology2022
Robot-assisted radical resection in prostate cancer comparative assessment with conventional laparoscopic prostatectomy: a retrospective comparative cohort study with single-center experience.
Article in Translational andrology and urology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- A comparison of perioperative outcomes for da Vinci robotic-assisted, laparoscopic and open surgery in oncologic procedures: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of evidence from China.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Article
- Identifying risk factors for hypoxemia during emergence from anesthesia in patients undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Radical prostatectomy is the standard of care in patients with prostate cancer. Robot-assisted prostatectomy have been used as alternatives to open surgery as they result in less bleeding and allow patients to return to normal activities sooner. This study sought to evaluate the medical factors and health economics of robot-assisted and laparoscopic-assisted prostate cancer surgery to provide a valuable reference for clinicians, patients, and their families when selecting a surgical method for prostate cancer. Methods: Patients treated with Da Vinci robot-assisted surgery (DVRS) or laparoscopic-assisted surgery (LS) between January 1, 2019, and June 1, 2021, were included in this retrospective analysis. The general baseline data included age, height, weight, body mass index (BMI), preoperative total prostate specific antigen (TPSA), Gleason score, tumor stage, operation time, intraoperative blood loss volume, hospital stay, drainage volume within 24 hours postoperatively, extubation time, postoperative hospital stay, and detailed hospitalization expenditure. The medical and health economics factors were compared between the two prostatectomy techniques. Results: The preoperative characteristics of the patients in the DVRS group and LS group were comparable, and the differences were not statistically significant (all P>0.05). Compared to the LS group, the operation time was significantly longer in the DVRS group, whereas the volume of intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay, extubation time, and postoperative hospital stay were all markedly lower (all P<0.05). Also, the treatment, nursing, and total operation costs were considerably lower in the DVRS group compared to the LS group, while the medical material cost, total hospitalization cost, and personal expenses were all notably higher (all P<0.05). Conclusions: Da Vinci robot-assisted prostatectomy is safe; however, the health economics should not be neglected that the robot-assisted operation cannot completely replace the conventional laparoscopic operation in the short term. The consideration of both clinical efficacy and health economics is necessary to provide suggestions for the choice of modus operandi.
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.