ArticleAmerican journal of cancer research2025
Robotic vs laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the impact of surgeon volume on surgical margins and quality of life.
Article in American journal of cancer research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The impact of prehabilitation on postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Pooled it
- Hospitalization expenses for radical prostatectomy in a tertiary hospital in China: a quantile regression and CHAID decision tree analysis.BMC health services research · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe principal established therapeutic option for localized prostate cancer is the robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) over the laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP). Robust data from Chinese hospitals is limited, and the effect of surgeon experience is often overlooked.
objectiveThis study retrospectively compares outcomes between RARP and LRP, evaluating the impact of surgeon experience.
methodsThe clinical information of 252 patients who underwent RARP or LRP between 2019 and 2023 was retrospectively analysed. Multivariable regression models, for both patient characteristics and surgeon volume, were employed to evaluate perioperative metrics, complications, positive surgical margins (PSM), continence, and patient-reported outcomes.
resultsRARP demonstrated superior advantages, including a shorter operative time (154.9±28.3 vs. 169.2±23.9 minutes, P<0.001), less blood loss (172.5±56.8 vs. 306.8±82.2 mL, P<0.001), and a shorter hospital stay (2.3 vs. 3.9 days, P<0.001). Multivariable analysis revealed that both surgical approaches and surgeon volume were predictors of outcomes: 66% lower odds of PSM (OR: 0.34, P=0.009) in the RARP group, while high-volume surgeons demonstrated 96% lower odds of PSM compared to low-volume surgeons (OR: 0.039, P<0.001). RARP patients experienced fewer complications (25.4% vs. 39.7%, P=0.016) and a higher continence recovery at 12 months (95.2% vs. 80.2%, P=0.001). Regarding patient-reported outcomes, RARP was consistently favored across all domains (P<0.01).
conclusionWhile preserving comparable functional and short-period cancer-related outcomes, RARP outperformed LRP in perioperative outcomes and patients' quality of life. These findings demonstrate that both surgical technology and surgeon volume are critical, independent determinants of surgical quality. The optimal outcomes are achieved by pairing advanced robotic technology with high-volume surgical expertise.
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.