ReviewBJUI compass2026
Prevention of lymphoceles using peritoneal flaps during robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in BJUI compass, 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.
- Peritoneal interposition flaps in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection: from efficacy to optimization.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Prevention of lymphoceles using peritoneal flaps during robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection: A systematic review and meta-analysis.BJUI compass · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The study aims to assess whether the use of a peritoneal flap (PF) during robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) with pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) reduces the incidence of lymphoceles compared to the standard surgical approach without a flap. Methods: The review was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD420251052120). A systematic search of PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, CENTRAL and Google Scholar was performed up to May 2025. Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or observational studies comparing PF use with the standard surgical technique without the flap during RARP with PLND. Primary outcomes were symptomatic, asymptomatic, total lymphoceles and lymphoceles requiring intervention. Secondary outcomes included complications, operative time, blood loss, positive surgical margins and hospital stay. Results: Fourteen studies (six RCTs, eight observational) including 7316 patients were analysed, with 2997 receiving the PF and 4319 receiving the standard technique. PF use was associated with a significantly lower incidence of symptomatic, asymptomatic, total lymphoceles and lymphoceles requiring intervention. PF use reduces overall complications without significantly increasing operative time, hospital stay or positive margins. Intraoperative blood loss was slightly lower in the standard group. Conclusions: PF use during RARP with PLND significantly reduces the incidence of lymphoceles and postoperative complications without compromising oncological or perioperative outcomes. These findings support PF use as a safe and effective technique for preventing lymphoceles.
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.