ArticleInternational braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology
"Single-Surgeon" versus "Dual-Surgeon" Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy and Pelvic Lymph-nodes Dissection: Comparative Analysis of Perioperative Outcomes.
Article in International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Feasibility and Initial Outcomes of Telesurgery in Urology: a Systematic Review of the Literature.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyPooled it
- New perspectives of robotic surgery are the topic highligheted in International Brazilian Journal of Urology.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyArticle
- Lateral Approach in Robotic-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Introducing Gaston's Technique in Brazil.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) with pelvic lymph-nodes dissection (PLND) when the same surgeon performs RARP and PLND versus one surgeon performs RARP and another surgeon performs PLND. MATERIALS AND
methodsFrom January 2022 to March 2023, data of consecutive patients who underwent RARP with PLND were prospectively collected. The surgeries were performed by two "young" surgeons with detailed profile. Specifically for the study purpose, one surgeon performed RARP, and the other surgeon performed PLND. A set of surgeries performed according to the standard setup (i.e., the same surgeon performing both RARP and PLND) was retrieved from the institutional database and used as comparator arm. To test the study hypothesis, patients were divided into two groups: "dual-surgeon" versus "single-surgeon".
resultsFifty patients underwent RARP and PLND performed according to dual-surgeon setup and were compared to the last 50 procedures performed according to the standard single-surgeon setup. Patients in the groups had comparable baseline characteristics. Dual-surgeon interventions had significantly shorter median total operative (194 [IQR 178-215] versus 174 [IQR 146-195] minutes, p<0.001) and console time (173 [IQR 158-194] versus 154 [IQR 129-170] minutes, p<0.001). No significant differences were found in terms of blood loss, intraoperative complications, postoperative outcomes, and final pathology results.
conclusionsThe present analysis found that when RARP and PLND are split onto two surgeons, the operative time is shorter by 20 minutes compared to when a single surgeon performs RARP and PLND. This is an interesting finding that could sponsor further studies.
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.