SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2023
Does previous transurethral resection of the prostate negatively influence subsequent robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy in men diagnosed with prostate cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
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 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Does transurethral resection of the prostate before robot-assisted radical prostatectomy have adverse effects on patients diagnosed with prostate cancer: a comparative evidence-based analysis?Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- TAPESTRY study: impact of prior transurethral resection of the prostate on outcomes after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a propensity score-matched cohort study.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Management of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms in Patients on Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer.Current urology reports · 2026Review
- Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy After Rezūm: A Case Report and Literature Review.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy after previous trans-urethral resection of the prostate: an analysis of perioperative, oncological and functional outcomes.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Comparison of Retzius-sparing versus anterior robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy in patients with prior transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP).World journal of urology · 2025Article
- A comparative analysis of robotic prostatectomy techniques post TURP/HOLEP: retzius-sparing vs. non-retzius approaches: evaluation of perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes.International urology and nephrology · 2025Article
- Recent Advances in Diagnosing and Treating Post-Prostatectomy Urinary Incontinence.Annals of surgical oncology · 2024Review
- Lethal Prostate Cancer in Mexico: Data from the Can.Prost Mexican Registry and a Project for Early Detection.Cancers · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It is not uncommon to incidentally discover prostate cancer during the transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia and necessitate a subsequent robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). The study aims to evaluate whether TURP have negative influence on subsequent RARP. Through a literature search using MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library, 10 studies with 683 patients who underwent RARP after previous TURP and 4039 patients who underwent RARP only were identified for the purposes of the meta-analysis. Compared to standard RARP, RARP after TURP was related to longer operative time (WMD: 29.1 min, 95% CI: 13.3-44.8, P < 0.001), more blood loss (WMD: 49.3 ml, 95% CI: 8.8-89.7, P = 0.02), longer time to catheter removal (WMD: 0.93 days, 95% CI: 0.41-1.44, P < 0.001), higher rates of overall (RR: 1.45, 95% CI: 1.08-1.95, P = 0.01) and major complications (RR: 3.67, 95% Cl: 1.63-8.24, P = 0.002), frequently demand for bladder neck reconstruction (RR: 5.46, 95% CI: 3.15-9.47, P < 0.001) and lower succeed in nerve sparing (RR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.62-0.87, P < 0.001). In terms of quality of life, there are worse recovery of urinary continence (RR of incontinence rate: RR: 1.24, 95% CI: 1.02-1.52, P = 0.03) and potency (RR: 0.8, 95% CI: 0.73-0.89, P < 0.001) at 1 year in RARP with previous TURP. In addition, the RARP with previous TURP had greater percentage positive margins (RR: 1.24, 95% CI: 1.02-1.52, P = 0.03), while there is no difference in length of stay and biochemical recurrence rate at 1 year. RARP is feasible but challenging after TURP. It significantly increases the difficulty of operation and compromises surgical, functional and oncological outcomes. It is important for urologists and patients to be aware of the negative impact of TURP on subsequent RARP and establish treatment strategies to lessen the adverse effects.
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.