Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36929480›Full record

SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2023

Perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes in patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy previous transurethral resection of prostate: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative trials.

Yang Liu, Jiao Qin, Kun-Peng Li, Zhi Wen, Jing Huang, Yu Jiang, Cai-Xia Chen, Chong-Jian Wang, Li Wang, Jia-Hao Wang and 1 more

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of robotic surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
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

11 authors.

Yang Liu *Department of Urology, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, China.
Jiao Qin *Department of Anesthesiology, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, China.
Kun-Peng Li *Department of Urology, The Second Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Zhi WenDepartment of Urology, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, China.
Jing HuangDepartment of Urology, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, China.
Yu JiangDepartment of Urology, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, China.
Cai-Xia ChenDepartment of Urology, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, China.
Chong-Jian WangDepartment of Urology, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, China.
Li WangDepartment of Urology, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, China.
Jia-Hao WangDepartment of Urology, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, China.
Xue-Song YangDepartment of Urology, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, China. Xuesongyang2022@163.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The influence of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) on patients who have previously undergone transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) versus TURP-naive patients is still debatable. The present study aimed to compare perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes of RARP between TURP and Non-TURP groups. We systematically searched the databases such as Science, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library database to identify relevant studies published in English up to August 2022. Review Manager was used to compare various parameters. The study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022378126). Eight comparative trials with a total of 4186 participants were conducted. The TURP group had a longer operative time (WMD 22.22 min, 95% CI 8.48, 35.95; p = 0.002), a longer catheterization time (WMD 1.32 day, 95% CI 0.37, 2.26; p = 0.006), a higher estimated blood loss (WMD 23.86 mL, 95% CI 2.81, 44.90; p = 0.03), and higher bladder neck reconstruction rate (OR 8.02, 95% CI 3.07, 20.93; p < 0.0001). Moreover, the positive surgical margin (PSM) was higher in the TURP group (OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.12, 1.98 p = 0.007). However, there was no difference between the two groups regarding the length of hospital stay, transfusion rates, nerve-sparing status, complication rates, long-term continence, potency rates and biochemical recurrence (BCR). Performing RARP on patients who have previously undergone TURP is a safe procedure. Furthermore, the current findings demonstrated that the TURP group had comparable oncologic and long-term functional outcomes to the Non-TURP group.

Indexed as

Prostatic NeoplasmsRoboticsRobotic Surgical ProceduresTransurethral Resection of ProstateHumansMaleProstatectomyTreatment OutcomeMeta-analysisOutcomesProstate cancerRobot-assisted radical prostatectomyTransurethral resection of the prostate

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.