SynthesisBMC urology2025
Efficacy and safety of urethral sparing versus other robot-assisted simple prostatectomy for large volume benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC urology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aim to evaluate the efficacy and safety of urethra-sparing robot-assisted simple prostatectomy (US-RASP) compared to conventional robot-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) for treating large-volume benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), with particular attention to preserving ejaculatory function.
methodsA thorough search was conducted across PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases for studies published until September 26, 2024. Five cohort studies involving 771 patients met the inclusion criteria. Data on perioperative outcomes, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF), Male Sexual Health Questionnaire Ejaculatory Dysfunction (MSHQ-EjD), Maximum Flow Rate (Qmax), Post-Void Residual Volume (PVR), Quality of Life (QoL) and complications were extracted and analyzed using RevMan 5.3 and Stata 15.
resultsThe meta-analysis revealed that US-RASP was markedly more effective than RASP in preserving ejaculatory function (MSHQ-EjD, WMD 8.09, 95% CI 5.92–10.26, p < 0.0001). No notable differences were identified between the two approaches regarding IPSS, IIEF, Qmax, PVR, QoL, operative time, or intraoperative blood loss and complications. Nonetheless, US-RASP showed benefits in shortening hospital stay and catheterization time.
conclusionsUS-RASP offers significant benefits in preserving ejaculatory function and is comparable to RASP in terms of safety and efficacy. It is a preferable option for younger patients or those desiring ejaculatory preservation, pending further validation through large-scale, prospective randomized trials.
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.