ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2025
A comparative analysis of robotic prostatectomy techniques post TURP/HOLEP: retzius-sparing vs. non-retzius approaches: evaluation of perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes.
Article in International urology and nephrology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe evaluated the perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes of Retzius-sparing and conventional non-Retzius-sparing robotic radical prostatectomy (RS-RARP and NRS-RARP) in the patients with a prior history of transurethral resection and enucleation of prostate (Post TURP/HOLEP).
methodsA total of 47 patients who had at least completed one year of follow-up after robotic radical prostatectomy and had a prior TURP/HOLEP were included in this retrospective analysis. The clinico-demographic data, perioperative parameters such as mean operating time, blood loss, mean hospital stay, complications as per Clavien-Dindo grading, and readmission were evaluated. Continence, potency, and biochemical recurrence were assessed to check the functional and oncological outcomes.
resultsThere was no significant difference in mean age, body mass index (BMI), co-morbidities, D-Amico risk stratification, preoperative PSA level and positive cores in TRUS-guided biopsy. The console time and blood loss were significantly less in the RS-RARP group (91.6 ± 24.2 vs. 128.9 ± 38.7 min vs. 110.3 ± 57.5 vs. 152.9 ± 64.9 ml, p = 0.0002 and p = 0.02, respectively). The complication rate, mean postoperative catheter duration, lymph nodes, readmission rates, final histopathology, and invasion status were similar in both groups. Continence achieved at 1,3,6,9 and 12-month follow-up was significantly more in the RS-RARP group (90% vs. 64.7% at 12-month; p = 0.01). The potency rates in nerve-sparing cases at 6-month and 1-year follow-ups were similar. Margin positivity rates and Biochemical recurrence were comparable and statistically insignificant in both groups.
conclusionRetzius-sparing RARP had less console time, less intraoperative blood loss and better continence recovery in both immediate and at 12-month follow-up. The potency, biochemical recurrence and margin status in both approaches were similar.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39969655What 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.