ArticleWorld journal of urology2024
Robot-assisted vs open retropubic radical prostatectomy: a propensity score-matched comparative analysis based on 15 years and 18,805 patients.
Article in World journal of urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Function drives 1-year decision regret in radical prostatectomy: a multicentre prospective study.BJU international · 2026Article
- Intraoperative molecular imaging - it's all about advancing surgical decision making and improving dexterity.Zeitschrift fur medizinische Physik · 2026Review
- Early matched comparison of a novel modular carina robotic platform and the da vinci system for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Feasibility and workflow analysis of confocal microscopy in robot-assisted prostatectomy.BJU international · 2026Article
- The evolution of radical prostatectomy: a scoping review on surgical techniques and integration of surgeon-assisting concepts into the surgical workflow.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Review
- Global research on robot-assisted prostatectomy: a bibliometric and visualization analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Review
- Impact of non-surgical OR time on efficiency and costs with Hugo™ RAS.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Letter to the Editor regarding "What the urologist needs to know before radical prostatectomy: MRI effective support to pre‑surgery planning": Open Radical Prostatectomy Remains Relevant.La Radiologia medica · 2025Article
- Adverse In-Hospital Outcomes Following Robot-Assisted vs. Open Radical Prostatectomy in Quadragenarians.Cancers · 2025Article
- Article
- Robotic vs laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the impact of surgeon volume on surgical margins and quality of life.American journal of cancer research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare oncological, functional, and surgical outcomes of a large cohort of patients who underwent open retropubic radical prostatectomy (ORP) or robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). MATERIALS AND
methodsData from 18,805 RPs performed with either the open or the robot-assisted approaches at a single tertiary referral center between 2008 and 2022 were analyzed. The impact of surgical approach on biochemical recurrence-free survival, salvage radiotherapy-free survival, and metastasis-free survival was analyzed by log-rank test and Kaplan-Meier analysis in a propensity score (PS)-based matched cohort. Intraoperative and postoperative surgical outcomes were assessed. One-week, 3-month, and 12-month continence rates and 12-month erectile function (EF) were analyzed.
resultsNo statistically significant differences in oncological outcomes were found between ORP and RARP. A slight statistically significant difference in favor of RARP was noted in urinary continence at 3 months (RARP vs. ORP: 81% vs. 77%, p = 0.007) and 12 months (91% vs. 89.3%, p = 0.008), respectively. The rate of EF was statistically significantly higher (60%) after RARP than after ORP (45%, p < 0.001).
conclusionBoth RARP and ORP yielded similar oncological outcomes. RARP offered a slight advantage in terms of continence recovery, but its clinical significance may be less meaningful. RARP resulted in significantly improved postoperative EF, suggesting a potential influence of both surgical experience and minimally invasive approach.
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.