Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38410341›Full record

ReviewCureus2024

Urinary Incontinence Following Robotic-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Literature Review.

Hamzeh Farraj, Sulieman Alriyalat

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Hamzeh FarrajDepartment of Special Surgery, Division of Urology, Al-Balqa Applied University, Salt, JOR.
Sulieman AlriyalatDepartment of Special Surgery, Division of Urology, Al-Balqa Applied University, Salt, JOR.
Al-Balqa Applied University · JO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Prostate cancer ranks as one of the most prevalent cancers among men in the United States, contributing significantly to cancer-related mortality. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) has become a cornerstone in the management of localized prostate cancer. This literature review delves into the outcomes of RARP, specifically its impact on urinary incontinence (UI) compared to other surgical methods. We also present the importance of patient perception versus medical reports. Recent studies and trials have unveiled that postoperative UI and erectile dysfunction (ED) remain common concerns following prostatectomy. However, studies have shown that RARP has lower occurrences of UI and ED compared to radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP). While the choice of surgical method may not drastically affect these outcomes, the review emphasizes that urinary incontinence extends beyond physical symptoms. It profoundly impacts patients' psychological well-being, social interactions, and overall quality of life. Differences in symptom recording and interpretation between patients and healthcare professionals can significantly influence the diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer. Enhanced patient-physician communication and patient-centered care are essential to providing a holistic approach to prostate cancer management. The choice of surgical methods may not significantly impact postoperative urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction. Continued research and advancements in treatment and patient care are crucial for improving outcomes and the overall well-being of prostate cancer patients.

Indexed as

literature reviewpost-surgical outcomesprostate cancerrobot-assisted radical prostatectomyurinary incontinence

Identifiers

PMID38410341
PMCPMC10896250
OpenAlexW4391276217

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.