Trial reportScientific reports2025
Functional outcomes of hypothermic robot assisted radical prostatectomy using BELLOCOOL in a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Hypothermia during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) has been proposed to enhance functional recovery. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of BELLOCOOL-induced hypothermic RARP for improving urinary continence and erectile function. A total of 200 patients with cT1-T3aN0M0 prostate cancer, eligible for bilateral nerve-sparing surgery, were enrolled across three tertiary centers and randomized 1:1. Stratification was based on International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) scores (≥ 12). The primary endpoint was continence status at 6 months, defined by the use of < 1 pad versus ≥ 1 pads daily. Secondary endpoints included continence and erectile function recovery and safety assessment using the Clavien system. The primary outcome showed no significant difference between groups. However, among patients with IIEF-5 ≥ 12, those in the hypothermic group exhibited significantly better erectile function recovery than normothermic group at 12 months, with higher IIEF-5 score (9.29 ± 7.25 vs. 6.33 ± 5.16, p = 0.02). In a hypothesis-generating post hoc analysis, non-diabetic patients with baseline IIEF-5 ≥ 12 had a significantly higher erectile function recovery (81% vs. 70%, p = 0.04) and continence recovery rates (89% vs. 67%, p = 0.02) in the hypothermic group, findings that warrant cautious interpretation.
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.