Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40986412›Full record

Observational studyInternational braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology

Managing Robotic Radical Prostatectomy in Men with Penile Prosthesis: Surgical Tech-nique, Outcomes, and Literature Review.

Rohan Sharma, Yu Ozawa, Shady Saikali, Avaneesh Kunta, Marcio Covas Moschovas, Travis Rogers, Vipul R Patel

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Rohan SharmaGlobal Robotics Institute, Advent Health, Celebration, Florida, United States.
Yu OzawaGlobal Robotics Institute, Advent Health, Celebration, Florida, United States.
Shady SaikaliGlobal Robotics Institute, Advent Health, Celebration, Florida, United States.
Avaneesh KuntaUniversity of Central Florida, College of Medicine, Florida, United States.
Marcio Covas MoschovasGlobal Robotics Institute, Advent Health, Celebration, Florida, United States.
Travis RogersGlobal Robotics Institute, Advent Health, Celebration, Florida, United States.
Vipul R PatelGlobal Robotics Institute, Advent Health, Celebration, Florida, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionRobotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in patients with pre-existing inflatable penile prostheses (IPP) poses technical challenges due to the intrapelvic reservoir. With rising rates of prostate cancer and IPP use, evidence on safely performing RARP in this group is limited. This study assesses the feasibility, safety, and perioperative outcomes of RARP in men with prior IPP. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 32 prostate cancer patients with functional three-piece IPPs who underwent RARP (2016-2024), excluding those with prior pelvic radiation, malleable implants, or incomplete data. Key adaptations included tailored port placement, cold dissection near the reservoir, site-specific retraction without reservoir removal, and intraoperative deflation as needed. Perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes were systematically assessed.

resultsMedian age was 67 years (IQR 61-73). Follow up duration was 24 months from RARP. Median operative time and blood loss were 110 minutes (IQR 98-120) and 100 mL (IQR 50-120), respectively. No intraoperative prosthesis injuries occurred. Clavien-Dindo grade I-II complications were observed in 8 patients (25%). Median time to continence (≤1 pad/day) was 56 days (IQR 46-92). All IPPs remained functional postoperatively without revision. 31 patients were continent at 12 months. Pathologic pT2 disease was present in 16 (50%) patients; positive margins occurred in 4 (12.5%) patients. Biochemical recurrence was noted in 9.4% at 12-month median follow-up.

conclusionRARP in patients with a pre-existing penile prosthesis reservoir is technically feasible and safe, with no increase in procedure-related or reservoir-specific complications.

Indexed as

Penile ProsthesisProstatectomyProstatic NeoplasmsRobotic Surgical ProceduresAgedFeasibility StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesReview Literature as TopicTreatment OutcomePenile ProsthesisProstatic NeoplasmsRobotic Surgical Proceduresy

Identifiers

PMID40986412
PMCPMC12974977

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.