ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2025
Early catheter removal after Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the feasibility of early catheter removal (< 3 days; ECR) after Retzius-sparing robot assisted radical prostatectomy (RS-RARP).
methodsPatients with non-metastatic prostate cancer without prior prostate surgery who underwent RS-RARP were assessed for reasons for the direct decision of delayed catheter removal (> 3 days; ddDCR). Furthermore, differences in patient characteristics and retention rate when the catheter was removed after 2 days (very ECR; VECR) or 3 days (standard ECR; SECR) were assessed and predictors of retention in the ECR were analyzed.
resultsOut of 343 patients, 31 patients (9%) needed ddDCR mainly due to anastomotic leakage or complex cases. Respectively 238 and 74 patients underwent SECR and VECR. Patients with VECR had significantly shorter operation time, more favorable risk group stratification, and more frequent bladder neck sparing compared to SECR. Patients after VECR had a significantly shorter hospital stay compared to SECR (2 versus 3 days; p < 0.001). The retention rate after VECR, SECR, and ddDCR was respectively 17.6%, 10.1%, and 3.2% (p = 0.084). There were no significant differences in patient-reported continence rates among groups. Retention could not predict continence. No predictor for retention could be identified.
conclusionsECR is possible in the large majority of patients undergoing RS-RARP. VECR is possible in selected patients and reduces hospital stay. However, the risk of retention after ECR should be informed. These results provide reliable evidences for perioperative management decisions in RS-RARP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41276718What 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.