ArticleAsian journal of urology2023
Randomized controlled trial comparing open anterograde anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy with retrograde technique.
Article in Asian journal of urology, 2023. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Radical prostatectomy is the recommended treatment for localized prostate cancer; however, it is an invasive procedure that can leave serious morbidity. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy was introduced with the aim of reducing postoperative morbidity and facilitating rapid recovery compared to the traditional Walsh's open radical retropubic prostatectomy. Therefore, a protocol was developed to perform an open prostatectomy comparable to that performed by robotics, but without involving novel instrumentation. Methods: A total of 220 patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer underwent radical prostatectomy. They were divided into two groups: anterograde technique (115 patients) and the retrograde method (105 patients). The study outcomes were observed 3 months after surgery. Results: No differences were found in terms of surgical time, hospital stay, and suction drainage. However, reduced bleeding was observed in the anterograde technique ( Conclusion: The anterograde method displayed increased efficiency in reducing complications, compared to the retrograde 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.