ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2026
Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy after previous trans-urethral resection of the prostate: an analysis of perioperative, oncological and functional outcomes.
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. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Evidence describing outcomes of Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RS-RARP) in men who previously underwent transurethral resection of the prostate (p-TURP) is limited. This study aimed to characterize perioperative performance, cancer control, and the pattern of urinary continence recovery (UCR) in this subgroup. We analyzed all RS-RARP procedures conducted by a single high-volume surgeon at a European tertiary center from April 2016 till December 2023. Patients were categorized according to the presence or absence of prior p-TURP. To minimize baseline differences, a 5:1 propensity score matching model was used. Among 542 men who met the inclusion criteria, 29 (17%) had previously undergone p-TURP. Operative metrics including blood loss, duration of surgery, hospital stay, time to catheter removal and postoperative complications did not differ significantly between the two groups (all p ≥ 0.1). Rates of positive surgical margins (17% vs. 17%, p = 0.9), PSA persistence (14% vs. 8%, p = 0.3), biochemical recurrence (10% vs. 14%, p = 0.8), and need for additional treatment (7% vs. 12%, p = 0.5) were likewise comparable. Early UCR both immediately after catheter removal and during the first months was slower in the p-TURP cohort; however, by 12 months all patients with prior TURP were continent, mirroring the continence rate observed in the control group (100% vs. 95%, p = 0.4). This study suggests that men with prior TURP experience perioperative and oncologic outcomes comparable to TURP-naive patients following RS-RARP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41639481What 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.