ArticleBMC urology2023
The application of Foley catheter traction technique in extraperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.
Article in BMC urology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo describe a technique to improve exposure of prostate during extraperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (EP-RARP). MATERIAL AND
methodsFrom March 2020 to June 2022, a total of 41 patients with prior intra-abdominal surgery underwent EP-RARP. Twenty-three patients improved exposure by traction of prostate through urinary catheter. The catheter traction prostatectomy (CTP) group was compared with the standard prostatectomy (SP) group using three robotic arms (18 patients) in terms of estimated blood loss (EBL), operative time, positive surgical margin rate, the recovery rate of urinary continence, Gleason score and postoperative hospital stays. Differences were considered significant when P < 0.05.
resultsThe operative time was lower in the CTP group (109.63 min vs. 143.20 min; P < 0.001). EBL in the CTP group was 178.26 ± 30.70 mL, and in the standard prostatectomy group, it was 347.78 ± 53.53 mL (P < 0.001). No significant differences with regard to postoperative hospital stay, recovery rate of urinary continence, catheterization time and positive surgical margin were observed between both groups. No intraoperative complications occurred in all the patients. After 6 months of follow-up, the Post-op Detectable prostate specific antigen was similar between the two groups.
conclusionCTP is a feasible, safe, and valid procedure in EP-RARP. Application of CTP improved the exposure of prostate, reduced operative time and blood loss in comparison with the conventional procedure.
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.