ArticleBMC urology2024
Minimally invasive cytoreductive radical prostatectomy, exploring the safety and feasibility of a single-port or multi-port robotic platform.
Article in BMC urology, 2024. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Perioperative efficiency and clinical outcomes of single-port versus multi-port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: an updated meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Robotic cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy: is there a benefit?Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Exploring the Potential of Robotic Single-Port Surgery for Gallbladder Cancer: Initial Insights and Future Prospects.Annals of surgical oncology · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConsolidative resection or cytoreductive radical prostatectomy (CRP) may benefit men with non-organ confined prostate cancer. We report the safety, feasibility, and outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic CRP using a single-port (SP) or multi-port (MP) platform.
methodsWe reviewed consecutive men with clinical node positive or metastatic castrate-sensitive prostate cancer who underwent IRB-approved CRP and extended pelvic lymph node dissection using the da Vinci SP or MP Surgical Systems (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA) from 2015-2022. Perioperative data and Clavien-Dindo 90-day complications were recorded.
resultsTwenty-four men with a median age of 61 (IQR 56-69) years and prostate-specific antigen of 32.1 (IQR 21.9-62.3) ng/mL were included. Clinical N1, M1, or N1 + M1 disease were detected in 8 (33%), 9 (38%), 7 (29%) patients, respectively. There was no difference in positive margins, 41% vs. 29% (P = 0.67), lymph node yield, 21 (IQR 14-28) vs. 20 (IQR 13.5-21) nodes (P = 0.31), or estimated blood loss, 150 mL (IQR 100-200) vs. 50 mL (IQR 50-125) (P = 0.06), between the MP and SP cohorts, respectively. Hospital length of stay was significantly shorter for the SP group, same-day discharge (IQR 0-0), compared to MP, 1-day (IQR 1-1), P < 0.001. One grade III bowel obstruction and lymphocele occurred in the MP cohort. No major complications occurred in the SP cohort.
conclusionRobot-assisted laparoscopic CRP is safe and feasible for select men with advanced castrate-sensitive prostate cancer.
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.