ArticleBJU international2026
Comparison of short-term complications after open, laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.
Article in BJU international, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy as the Institutional Standard: Complete Transition and Contemporary Outcomes from a High-Volume European Center.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Device malfunctions and patient harm in robotic-assisted prostatectomy: a 17-year review of the FDA MAUDE database.Journal of robotic surgery · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of this study is to address the lack of real-life study comparing the impact of the three surgical approaches for radical prostatectomy (RP), i.e., open (ORP), laparoscopic (LRP) and robot-assisted (RARP), on the occurrence of postoperative events by measuring the association between surgical approach and risk of death, transfer to an intensive care unit (ICU), or complications during hospitalisation for RP. PATIENTS AND
methodsThis study used the French National Health Data System (Système National des Données de Santé [SNDS]) to study the 38 481 patients who underwent a RP in French hospitals in 2020-2021. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of any event (death, ICU admission, or complications) during hospitalisation for RP. Secondary endpoints were the occurrence of death, ICU admission, complications, and each of the complication subtypes. Outcomes were analysed by uni- and multivariable logistic regression.
resultsA RARP was associated with the lowest risk of an event during hospitalisation, followed by LRP compared with ORP (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.48-0.55; and aOR 0.63, 95% CI 0.58-0.68, respectively). RARP was associated with a reduction in the risk of most complications compared with ORP. Minimally-invasive procedures were associated with an increased risk of hernia. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first French nationwide study of its sort and limitations are related to the observational nature of our study, the use of a medico-administrative database, and the length of follow-up. To confirm the main results 30-day sensitivity analyses were performed.
conclusionsThere were significantly fewer short-term postoperative events for RARP. Additional studies with a longer follow-up period are required to investigate the medium- and long-term risks.
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.