ArticleJSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
Ultrapreservation in Robotic Assisted Radical Prostatectomy Provides Early Continence Recovery.
Article in JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Demonstration of anatomical and technical details of robotic laparoscopic radical prostatectomy as described in the current literature.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- [Surgical techniques to improve continence after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy based on video-anatomy-a review].Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Review
- Comparison of Ultrapreservation and Retzius-Sparing Techniques in Robotic Radical Prostatectomy: Single-Center Experience.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Development of a Risk Model to Identify and Prevent Factors Influencing Erectile Dysfunction After Robotic Radical Prostatectomy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Factors Determining Postoperative Early Continence in Patients Undergoing Robotic Radical Prostatectomy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objectives: We aimed to evaluate oncological and functional results of the ultrapreservation anterior-sparing technique in patients with localized prostate cancer. Methods: In this single-center study, patients with low to intermediate risk prostate cancer, who were treated with the ultrapreservation anterior-sparing technique, were included retrospectively. The oncological and functional outcomes were recorded. After the functional and pathological evaluation in the first month, patients' prostate-specific antigen levels were followed, as well as continence and potency status bimonthly for one year. Continence is defined as no leakage and zero pads for security. Patients' potency was evaluated using the Sexual Health Inventory for Men, with ≥ 17 considered potent. Results: A total of 118 patients were included in the study. The pathological stage was pT2 in 78% (n = 92) of patients, with pT3 in 22% (n = 26). Surgical margin positivity occurred in 13.5% (n = 16) of patients. No complications were observed intraoperatively. Continence rates were 25.4% after catheter removal, rising to 88.9% in the first month, 91.5% in the third, 93.2% in the fifth, and 95.7% a year later. Thirty-five (40%) of 86 potent patients were potent in the first postoperative month, 48 patients (55.8%) were potent in the third month, and 58 patients (67.4%) were potent in the twelfth. The total complication rate was 8.4%, with no major complications observed. Conclusion: The ultrapreservation anterior-sparing technique for patients with prostate cancer shows safe, acceptable functional and oncological results in short-term follow-up. However, long-term comparative studies with a larger number of patients are needed.
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.