ArticleScientific reports2024
Effects of robotic surgery experience on open radical prostatectomy results: single centre & single surgeon experience.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Global trends in learning curves of robot-assisted urological surgery: a bibliometric analysis of surgical safety and functional recovery.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the effect of robotic surgery experience on open radical prostatectomy (ORP) outcomes. We retrospectively reviewed 100 patients who underwent an ORP for clinically localised prostate cancer (PCa) performed by the same experienced surgeon. The groups included the last 50 patients before (Group 1) and the first 50 patients after (Group 2) robotic surgery experience. A detailed history, peroperative, and oncological data were recorded. Continence status and erectile functions were evaluated before surgery and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively by daily pad count and an International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) short form and were compared between groups. The demographics and preoperative data were similar. The preoperative and postoperative Gleason score was higher in Group 2 (p = 0.001, 0.033; respectively). The operation time (200 vs. 115 min), estimated blood loss (400 vs. 200 ml), peroperative transfusion rate (46% vs. 8%), drain removal time (4 vs. 3 days), hospital stay (5 vs. 4 days), and urethral catheter removal time (21 vs. 14 days) were significantly lower in Group 2 (p < 0.001). The continence rate was significantly higher in Group 2 in the first month (p = 0.027), but no significant difference was found at 3, 6, and 12 months. Erectile functions (mean IIEF: 9.47 vs. 11.18 at 12th month, p = 0.220) showed no significant difference between the groups in the first year after surgery. In addition to ergonomic benefits, robotic surgery provides a significant surgical procedure experience due to its great visualisation. The most important advantages that robotic surgery adds to our ORP experience were improved early continence; less bleeding and a decreased need for transfusions; and a shorter operation time, hospital stay, and urethral catheter removal time.
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.