ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2026
Increasing Age at Radical Prostatectomy: A Total Population Analysis in Germany from 2006 to 2022.
Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Robot-associated inpatient hospital activity in Germany, 2019-2025: nationwide trends in coded robot categories and diagnostic case mix.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Disproportionate expansion of radical prostatectomy among older men in Japan in the robotic surgery era: a nationwide descriptive time series analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Impact of frailty on perioperative and oncologic outcomes after robotic radical prostatectomy: a multicenter study with competing risk analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Resuscitation during robotic-assisted pelvic surgery: impact of simulation training and system-specific factors.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- ASO Author Reflections: Shifting Age Demographics in Prostate Cancer Surgery: Insights from 17 Years of German Data.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
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
backgroundWith increasing life expectancy, the number of elderly patients seeking curative treatment for prostate cancer is rising. Radical prostatectomy (RP), particularly the robotic approach, has proven feasible in older men. This study analyzes trends in RP among men aged ≥ 75 years of age in Germany between 2006 and 2022. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis nationwide retrospective study used German hospital billing data, including 444,102 RPs from 2006 to 2022. Outcomes were in-hospital mortality, transfusion rates, and the length of stay.
resultsThe mean age of RP increased from 64.96 ± 6.07 years in 2006 to 66.53 ± 6.88 years in 2022 (p < 0.001). The proportion of men of men ≥ 75 years rose from 3% (935 of 28,374) to 12% (3505 of 29,363) (p < 0.001). In 2022, patients ≥ 75 had longer hospital stays (8.15 ± 4.63 versus 7.57 ± 3.97 days; p < 0.001), higher mortality (0.3% (9 of 3014) versus 0.1% (26 of 26,349); p = 0.003), and higher transfusion rate (5% (188 of 3505) versus 2% (641 of 25,858); p < 0.001). Patients ≥ 75 years underwent open RP more frequently than robotic RP (14% (1110 of 7831) versus 11% (2227 of 20,205); (p < 0.001)), were more frequently treated in nonuniversity hospitals (76% (2643 of 3462) versus 73% (18,534 of 25,344); p < 0.001), and less often in high-volume hospitals (> 199 cases/year) in 2022 (11% (1495 of 13,200) versus 13% (1999 of 15,609); (p < 0.001)).
conclusionsThe proportion of people ≥ 75 years is continuing to rise, which leads to more patients with poorer functional outcomes. The longer hospital stays, higher transfusion rates, and mortality are nevertheless within acceptable limits.
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.