ArticleUrology practice2024
Outcomes and Safety of Suprapubic vs Urethral Catheterization Following Pelvic Fascia‒Sparing Robotic Prostatectomy.
Article in Urology practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Catheter strategy and functional recovery after robotic prostatectomy: a systematic review of suprapubic versus urethral drainage.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Surgical Complications in a large series of Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: impact of surgical experience and technical modifications (1016 cases).Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
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
introductionUrethral catheter (UC) discomfort remains a burden following robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Suprapubic catheters (SPCs) may reduce patient discomfort and increase satisfaction. Pelvic fascia‒sparing (PFS) RARP reduces the technical challenges of intraoperative SPC placement. We examined postoperative outcomes of SPC vs UC placement following PFS-RARP.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective review of a prospective institutional review board‒approved database of PFS-RARP patients from June 2020 to December 2022 receiving SPC (n = 108) or UC (n = 104) postoperatively. Demographics and clinical and perioperative outcomes were captured. Postoperative patient-reported quality of life was measured using EPIC-CP (Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite for Clinical Practice). Patients with intraoperative complications or intraoperative leaks or undergoing salvage prostatectomy were excluded. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed to compare outcomes.
resultsNo significant differences in demographics or oncologic outcomes existed. There were no differences in complications, including urethral stricture or anastomotic leak. Men receiving SPC vs UC had earlier return to continence (7 vs 16 days,
conclusionsSPC after PFS-RARP is a safe and feasible alternative to UC. SPC is associated with an earlier return to continence and higher continence rates at catheter removal. Use of SPC may increase overall patient satisfaction following PFS-RARP.
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.