SynthesisClinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2025
Minimally invasive radical prostatectomy versus open radical prostatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized control trials.
Synthesis in Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- NeuroSAFE-guided robot-assisted radical prostatectomy versus standard RARP: systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- A bibliometric analysis of the robotic revolution in prostate cancer surgery: evolution, hotspots, and future directions.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Oncological efficacy, functional outcomes and safety of MR-guided ultrasound ablation (MRgFUS/TULSA) for localized prostate cancer: a scoping review.La Radiologia medica · 2026Article
- Early Postoperative Outcomes with the ToumaiCancers · 2026Article
- Robotic vs laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the impact of surgeon volume on surgical margins and quality of life.American journal of cancer research · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the comparative outcomes of Minimally Invasive Radical Prostatectomy (MIRP) versus Open Radical Prostatectomy (ORP) to treat localized prostate cancer, using only Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) to ensure high-quality evidence.
methodA systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, focusing solely on RCTs comparing MIRP (robot-assisted or laparoscopic surgery) and ORP. Literature searches across multiple databases, including Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, Lilacs, Scopus, Web of Science, NIH, Clinical Trials, and EU Clinical Trials Register, identified studies meeting predefined PICOT criteria. Four RCTs met inclusion criteria ‒ two representing the same cohort of patients ‒ and were analyzed for perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes. Quality assessment utilized the ROB-2 tool to gauge the risk of bias.
resultsThree RCTs encompassing 1051 patients were analyzed. MIRP demonstrated statistically significant benefits over ORP in terms of reduced perioperative blood loss (Standardized Mean Difference [SMD = -3.058], p = 0.006), lower transfusion rates (Odds Ratio [OR = 0.137]; p = 0.009), and fewer overall complications (OR = 0.465; p = 0001). However, no significant differences were found in long-term oncologic and functional outcomes, including urinary continence and erectile function. Positive surgical margins and additional treatments also did not differ significantly between groups.
conclusionThis systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs indicated that MIRP offers perioperative advantages over ORP, supporting its role as a safe and effective option for localized prostate cancer.
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.