Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39333992›Full record

Trial reportBMC cancer2024

Feasibility, safety and effectiveness of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with a new robotic surgical system: a prospective, controlled, randomized clinical trial.

Jie Dong, Ruoyu Ji, Liang Cui, Guanghua Liu, Yi Xie, Jingmin Zhou, Huizhen Wang, Weifeng Xu, Zhigang Ji

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. [Mid- to Long-Term Urinary Continence Outcomes of Pelvic-Peritoneal Structure-Sparing Techniquein Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy].Sichuan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Sichuan University. Medical science edition · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. 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

9 authors.

Jie Dong *Department of Urology, Peking Union Medical College, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, 100730, China.
Ruoyu Ji *Department of Allergy, Peking Union Medical College, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.
Liang CuiDepartment of Urology, Civil Aviation General Hospital, Civil Aviation Medical College of Peking University, Beijing, China.
Guanghua LiuDepartment of Urology, Peking Union Medical College, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, 100730, China.
Yi XieDepartment of Urology, Peking Union Medical College, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, 100730, China.
Jingmin ZhouDepartment of Urology, Peking Union Medical College, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, 100730, China.
Huizhen WangDepartment of Operation room, Peking Union Medical College, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.
Weifeng XuDepartment of Urology, Peking Union Medical College, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, 100730, China. xuweifeng@pumch.cn.
Zhigang JiDepartment of Urology, Peking Union Medical College, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, 100730, China. windslipper@sina.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRobot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) gains increasing popularity in the surgical management of prostate cancer (PCa) but is challenged by its prohibitive expense. A domestic robotic system has been developed to address this issue, but data comparing the self-developed robot with the widely used robot is lacking. We performed a randomized clinical trial to compare KD-SR-01 MATERIALS AND

methodsWe prospectively enrolled patients with clinically localized PCa. Patients were randomized to undergo either KD-SR-01

resultsWe enrolled 39 patients, including 20 patients undergoing K-RARP and 19 undergoing D-RARP. Demographic and tumor characteristics were comparable between groups. All surgeries were performed successfully with no conversion to open. The operative time was similar (P = 0.095) and K-RARP offered less volume of intraoperative bleeding (P < 0.001). Four patients in the K-RARP group and three in the D-RARP group developed postoperative complications (P = 0.732). Patients undergoing K-RARP had less volume of drainage (P = 0.022). Positive surgical margins were observed in three patients undergoing K-RARP and five undergoing D-RARP (P = 0.451). During the follow up, one patient receiving K-RARP group and two receiving D-RARP group had measurable prostate specific antigen (P = 0.605). Urine leakage, urinary control and pad usage were comparable between groups at six weeks post-surgery.

conclusionsThe two surgical robots yielded similar results in feasibility, safety and short-term oncologic and functional efficacy for RARP.

trial registrationThe trial has been registered at www.chictr.org.cn with a registration number of ChiCTR2200057000 on 25th February 2022.

Indexed as

Feasibility StudiesProstatectomyProstatic NeoplasmsRobotic Surgical ProceduresAgedHumansMaleMiddle AgedOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsProspective StudiesTreatment OutcomePerioperative outcomeProstate cancerRandomized clinical trialRobot-assisted radical prostatectomyTechnological innovations

Identifiers

PMID39333992
PMCPMC11438142

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.