ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2025
Comparative analysis of disruptive events in robotic and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study compares laparoscopic (LRP) and robotic-assisted (RARP) radical prostatectomy to identify external and internal disruptive events, focusing on tasks that require heightened attention and coordination among the surgical team. Observations conducted across three hospitals in Australia and China. Data collection was rigorously ensured through the analysis of video recordings and consultations with surgeons, followed by statistical analysis using the Wilcoxon Signed Rank test. In a sample of 54 surgeries (27 RARP, 27 LRP), 15 activities were analysed, identifying 23 internal and 38 external disruption types. The findings indicate that RARP significantly reduces both external and internal disruptions compared to LRP, with decreases of around 41% and 33%, respectively. Notably, neurovascular bundle release showed the highest internal disruptions, with 123 events in RARP and 160 in LRP, and minor vessel bleeding led to the most internal disruptions, with 200 in RARP and 251 in LRP. RARP advantages include fewer disruptions due to pre-dissection inspections for visibility, improved blood management, and a skilled assistant, reducing the need for direct eye contact and repeated instructions. This study adds new dimensions to existing research by comparing internal and external disruptions in complex surgeries-specifically radical prostatectomy-performed using two approaches: robotic-assisted and laparoscopic.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39760830What 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.