ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2026
Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy in patients 80+ years: a multi-centre experience.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 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.
- 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
- Resuscitation during robotic-assisted pelvic surgery: impact of simulation training and system-specific factors.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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prostate cancer (PCa) is a major health concern in ageing populations. While guidelines often preclude older men from robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), outcomes are not well defined. We evaluated functional and oncological outcomes of RARP in patients ≥ 80 years. A multi-centre review of prospectively maintained surgical databases from three high-volume robotic surgeons was performed. Men ≥ 80 years old who underwent RARP between 2016 and 2024 were included. Demographic, surgical, functional, and oncological outcomes were analysed. Thirty men (mean age 82.6 years) were included. Fifteen, five and ten patients had ISUP Grade Group 2-3, 4 and 5 diseases, respectively. Twenty (20/30, 67%) patients had high-risk disease, with 16 clinical stage ≥ T2c. Mean operative time was 132 min and mean estimated blood loss was 187 mLs. Two complications occurred, one Clavien-Dindo grade II and one grade III. Median follow-up was 30.5 months (IQR 11.5-45.3). At 12 months, 16 out of 23 patients (70%) were pad-free or using one safety pad, and 4 (4/23, 17%) required one pad/day. Pathology revealed locally advanced disease in 22 (22/30, 73%) patients (≥ T3), and 6 (6/22, 20%) patients with a positive surgical margin. Biochemical recurrence is defined as PSA ≥ 0.2 ng/ml (Bellera et al. Ann Oncol 23(8):2166-2172, 2012) and it was observed in 11 patients (11/30, 37%), with 7 patients receiving further treatment. Small cohort size and retrospective analysis limit generalisability. RARP is safe and feasible in carefully selected octogenarians, showing acceptable functional and oncological outcomes. Older men should not be precluded from surgery based on age alone. This study supports offering RARP to these men after counselling on peri-operative risks and alternatives.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41483419What 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.