ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2024
Robotic radical prostatectomy (RALP) with pre-existing inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP): technical innovations to improve safety and outcomes.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Determinants of access route in single-port off-clamp robotic partial nephrectomy: A contemporary cohort study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Managing Robotic Radical Prostatectomy in Men with Penile Prosthesis: Surgical Tech-nique, Outcomes, and Literature Review.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyObservational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) is the gold standard surgical approach for treatment of prostate cancer. Prostate cancer is often comorbid with erectile dysfunction (ED), and a small subgroup of men undergoing RALP have an indwelling inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP). In men with IPPs, we perform two techniques at the time of RALP to preserve the pelvic reservoir. In the No Touch Technique, we leave the pseudocapsule of the reservoir intact, electing to dissect the pelvic sidewall and lateral prostatic attachments away from the pseudocapsule. In the Safe Mobilization Technique, we sharply open the pseudocapsule overlying the reservoir and relocate the reservoir out of the pelvis. We retrospectively analyzed 155 cases (Group IPP) from a cohort of 1000 men who underwent RALP. These cases were compared to a randomly selected control group comprising 455 men with PCa who underwent RALP without prior IPP placement (Group NoIPP). We compared perioperative and functional outcomes. The overall incidence of positive surgical margins (PSM) did not significantly differ between the groups (14% in Group IPP and 12% in Group NoIPP, p = 0.4). Furthermore, there was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of PSM at the bladder neck between Group IPP (5.3%) and Group NoIPP (3.4%), p = 0.1. Binomial logistic regression analysis did not find prior IPP placement to be a significant predictor of continence at 3 and 6 months or for BCR. All patients in Group IPP were able to successfully cycle their devices postoperatively and there were no reported device infections. The No Touch Technique and Safe Mobilization Technique are easy to perform and safe adjunct procedures at the time of RALP in men with pre-existing IPP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39607540What 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.