ArticleWorld journal of urology2025
Comparison of Retzius-sparing versus anterior robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy in patients with prior transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP).
Article in World journal of urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesRadical prostatectomy (RP) following previous transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is technically challenging due to an altered anatomy and fibrosis, often resulting in impaired functional outcomes. Open and anterior robotic approaches (aRARP) were evaluated in this setting, while data on Retzius-sparing robotic radical prostatectomy (rsRARP) is lacking. We aim to compare urinary continence, complications, and oncologic control between rsRARP and aRARP in patients with prior TURP. PATIENTS AND
methodsA total of 65 patients with localized prostate cancer undergoing rsRARP or aRARP between 2010 and 2022 following prior TURP were analyzed. The primary endpoint was urinary continence recovery (max. one safety pad per day), immediately after catheter removal and at 12 and 24 months. Secondary endpoints included peri- and postoperative complications and biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free survival.
resultsOf the included patients, 30 patients (46%) and 35 patients (54%) underwent rsRARP and aRARP, respectively. Median time between TURP and RP was 65 months (IQR 19-132). Immediate continence rate was 73.3% (n = 22) in rsRARP patients vs. 57.1% (n = 20) in aRARP patients. At 12 months, continence rates were 86.2% (rsRARP) vs. 91.2% (aRARP), and at 24 months, 80.8% vs. 93.9%, respectively. The surgical technique was not significantly associated with 12-month continence recovery, while nerve-sparing showed a trend towards improved outcomes. Complications occurred in 15.4% (n = 10), the highest being a grade IIIb according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. At 24 months, BCR-free survival was 89% (95% CI: 79-100) for rsRARP and 97% (92-100) for aRARP (p = 0.42).
conclusionIn patients with prior TURP, RARP using a Retzius-sparing approach is feasible and safe. While long-term continence outcomes are comparable to aRARP, rsRARP may offer improved immediate continence recovery, likely due to superior preservation of anatomical structures relevant to urinary function. These findings support the use of rsRARP even in surgically challenging post-TURP anatomy.
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.