ArticleInternational journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association2025
South African single surgeon experience: Comparison of oncological outcomes, robot-assisted radical prostatectomy versus open perineal radical prostatectomy.
Article in International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStudies comparing oncological outcomes between robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and open radical prostatectomy (ORP) are often limited by bias because of their multi-institutional and multiple surgeon design. Studies from a single institution and single surgeon are uncommon.
objectiveTo compare oncological outcomes between RARP and ORP at a single institution by a single surgeon. DESIGN, SETTING AND
participantsA retrospective cohort study of 2376 men with localized prostate cancer who underwent either RARP or ORP, from 1995 to 2020 at single institution, by one surgeon was done. The first 100 cases were discounted in both cohorts to account for the learning curve. MEASUREMENTS: Positive surgical margin (PSM) and biochemical recurrence (BCR) rates were measured for each cohort.
resultsA total of 1566 men underwent ORP and 810 underwent RARP. BCR rates of 29.2% were found in the ORP group versus 19.5% in the RARP group (p < 0.001). PSM rates of 15.4% were found in the ORP group versus 9.0% in the RARP group (p < 0.001). A multivariate analysis of preoperative prostate specific antigen (PSA) and tumor stage (T) shows no statistically significant association with recurrence when controlled for surgical technique.
conclusionsRARP produces better oncological outcomes when compared to ORP when performed by one experienced surgeon at a single institution. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this large study of men with prostate cancer still localized to the prostate. We found that better cancer removal and chances of cancer recurrence are reduced by a robot-assisted prostate removal technique, compared to the traditional open technique.
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.