ArticleCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2023
Is It Safe to Switch from a Standard Anterior to Retzius-Sparing Approach in Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy?
Article in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of transperitoneal anterior, retzius-sparing, extraperitoneal, transvesical and perineal approaches on urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2025Pooled it
- Comparison of efficacy of Retzius-sparing radical prostatectomy versus standard radical prostatectomy in the treatment of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Application and efficacy of Retzius-sparing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Early versus Long-Term Post-Prostatectomy Incontinence Recovery Among Three Robotic-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy Techniques: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Cancer management and research · 2026Article
- Early catheter removal after Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Learning Curves in Robotic Urological Oncological Surgery: Has Anything Changed During the Last Five Years?Cancers · 2025Review
- Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy by Lateral Approach: Technique, Reproducibility and Outcomes.Cancers · 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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRetzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RS-RARP) has been shown to lead to better outcomes regarding early continence compared to standard anterior RARP (SA-RARP). The goal of this study was to assess the feasibility and safety of implementing RS-RARP in a tertiary center with experience in SA-RARP.
methodsFrom February 2020, all newly diagnosed non-metastatic prostate cancer patients for whom RARP was indicated were evaluated for RS-RARP. Data from the first 100 RS-RARP patients were prospectively collected and compared with data from the last 100 SA-RARP patients. Patients were evaluated for Clavien Dindo grade ≥3a complications, urinary continence after 2 and 6 weeks, 3, 6 and 12 months, erectile function, positive surgical margins (PSMs) and biochemical recurrence (BCR).
resultsThere was no significant difference in postoperative complications at Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3a (SA-RARP: 6, RS-RARP: 4;
conclusionsThe transition from SA-RARP to RS-RARP can be safely performed by surgeons proficient in SA-RARP. Continence results after RS-RARP were significantly better at any time point. A higher proportion of PSMs was observed, although it did not result in a worse BCR-free survival.
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.