SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2024
Modified apical dissection during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of robotic surgery, 2024. 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.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) has improved patient recovery, but achieving optimal functional outcomes remains a challenge, especially early urinary continence. The Modified Apical Dissection (MAD) technique has been suggested to improve early continence compared to conventional RALP. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases was conducted to identify studies on MAD from inception to March 2024. The risk of bias was evaluated using the ROBINS-I tool. Primary outcomes assessed included urinary continence, positive surgical margin rate, biochemical recurrence rates, and complication rates. Out of 789 studies screened initially, we selected 8 studies that met our inclusion criteria. Our analysis showed that patients who underwent the MAD technique had a significantly higher likelihood of achieving early urinary continence compared to those undergoing conventional RALP at the initial follow-up (Odds Ratio [OR] = 4.0, 95% CI = 1.87-8.57). This advantage continued at 1 month (OR = 5.44, 95% CI = 2.98-9.92), 3 months (OR = 5.36, 95% CI = 2.26-12.71), and 6 months (OR = 5.18, 95% CI = 1.51-17.75), though no significant difference was noted at 12 months. There were no significant differences in positive surgical margin rate or biochemical recurrence rate between MAD and conventional RALP. The overall complication rate was 10.9% (95% CI = 8.10-14.06), with most complications being classified as minor (Clavien-Dindo I-II). In summary, our meta-analysis suggests that the MAD technique may lead to earlier recovery of urinary continence without compromising oncologic outcomes in patients undergoing RALP. While there are published studies on the outcomes of MAD, only a few have the appropriate design with a comparison group needed for meta-analysis and discussing various endpoints. More randomized controlled trials are necessary, but the current literature still lacks retrospective studies with comparison groups.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39068351What 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.