ArticleWorld journal of surgical oncology2025
Perioperative and short-term outcomes of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in elderly patients.
Article in World journal of surgical oncology, 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
objectiveTo precisely assess whether laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is safe and efficient in elderly individuals suffering from localized prostate cancer in the perioperative and short-term postoperative periods.
methodsA comprehensive retrospective analysis was undertaken of the clinical records pertaining to patients who underwent laparoscopic radical prostatectomy at our institution, spanning from January 2022 to November 2024. These patients were subsequently categorized into an elderly cohort (≥80 years old, n=54) and a non-elderly cohort (<80 years old, n=67) on the basis of age. Aside from that, the surgical safety and efficacy were compared between these two groups.
resultsThe patients were stratified into two distinct groups: the elderly cohort and the non-elderly cohort. Notably, no statistically discernible differences emerged between thesese two groups with regard to the duration of the surgical procedure [(136.9 ± 47.8) min vs. (140.5 ± 40.4) min], intraoperative blood loss [(11.9 ± 8.1) g/L vs. (12.4 ± 6.3) g/L], postoperative renal function changes [(5.6 ± 14.9) μmol/L vs. (2.3 ± 9.1) μmol/L], in dwelling catheter time [(10.0 ± 2.8) days vs. (10.4 ± 2.5) days], hospital stay [(14.8 ± 4.5) days vs. (14.5 ± 3.9) days], and hospitalization costs [(25,638.3 ± 5,389.5) yuan vs. (24,589.8 ± 4,162.5) yuan] (all P > 0.05). Nonetheless, the recovery time of intestinal function [1 (1, 2) days vs. 1 (1, 1) days] demonstrated a conspicuous difference (P < 0.05). At 6 weeks postoperatively, the tPSA levels were [(0.019 ± 0.018) ng/mL vs. (0.017 ± 0.017) ng/mL] in the two groups, with no statistically significant difference (P > 0.05).Postoperative intensive care unit transfers (all for 1 day) were 21 and 8 cases in the two groups, separately, while infection-related fever occurred in 13 and 7 cases, severally, both showing statistically significant differences (P < 0.05). No significant disparity in urinary control was detected between these two groups at the 3-month follow-up post-catheter removal (P > 0.05).
conclusionFor elderly individuals suffering from localized prostate cancer, laparoscopic radical prostatectomy has demonstrated favorable safety and efficacy in the perioperative and short-term postoperative periods, and is deemed a feasible surgical option for patients with favorable overall physical health.
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.