ReviewCentral European journal of urology2025
Feasibility and safety of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy following laser enucleation of the prostate.
Review in Central European journal of urology, 2025. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The aim of this study was to systematically review the available evidence on the feasibility and safety of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in patients with prostate cancer following laser enucleation of the prostate (LEP). Material and methods: A systematic search was conducted using PubMed (MEDLINE) and Web of Science online databases until 31 July 2025 with the search terms ("HoLEP" OR "endoscopic enucleation" OR "laser enucleation of the prostate" OR "ThuLEP" OR "ThuFLEP" OR "EEP" OR "LEP") AND ("robot assisted radical prostatectomy" OR "robotic assisted radical prostatectomy" OR "RARP") by incorporating the PICO formula (population, intervention, comparison, outcome). Results: Three studies were identified. Continence rates and recovery times differed between patients with prior LEP and those who were LEP-naïve. In one study, postoperative incontinence rates were significantly different between the prior HoLEP and HoLEP-naïve groups (74.0% vs 22.0%, p <0.001), whereas in the other two studies there was no significant difference between groups. Erectile function was documented in 2 studies, which exhibited no statistically significant differences between the prior-LEP group and LEP-naïve group. Complication rates across the studies remained relatively low (7.0-9.0%). Biochemical recurrence and positive surgical margins between the previous LEP and LEP naïve groups were comparable. Conclusions: In patients undergoing RARP after LEP, complications are low and the oncological outcomes are promising, similar to patients who are LEP-naïve. It is essential for surgeons to counsel patients on the potential for prolonged recovery, particularly in regard to continence and sexual function.
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.