ReviewAsian journal of urology2025
Erectile function after laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Asian journal of urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- How robotic platforms have expanded the boundaries of minimally invasive surgery: a narrative review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Outcomes After Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy Versus da Vinci Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy.Cureus · 2026Article
- Health literacy correlates, barriers, and adherence in post-prostatectomy sexual rehabilitation: cross-sectional findings from China.Frontiers in public health · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Prostate cancer is a common malignancy in men over 50 years old, and radical prostatectomy, particularly via laparoscopic and robotic-assisted techniques, significantly impacts quality of life, especially in terms of erectile dysfunction. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the preservation of erectile function following robotic-assisted and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, with a separate analysis of randomized clinical trials and non-randomized studies. Methods: This review was carried out using randomized and non-randomized studies involving adult patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy, according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and registered in PROSPERO. Applicable literature from PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and the Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature database was analysed. The bias in randomized clinical trials was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool, and observational studies were evaluated via the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager version 5.4. Results: Our analysis included 13 studies involving 6281 patients. Comparative meta-analysis of non-randomized studies demonstrated that robotic techniques were significantly more effective in preserving erectile function at 3 months (risk difference [RD] 0.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.00-0.11; Conclusion: Robotic-assisted surgery showed greater preservation of erectile function 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after radical prostatectomy. However, additional studies with meticulous methodological criteria are necessary for future analysis.
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.