ArticlePloS one2026
Application and efficacy of the pubovesical complex-preserving technique in intrafascial laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: A propensity score-matched analysis.
Article in PloS one, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to introduce the pubovesical complex preserving technique in intrafascial laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (PPLRP) and compare its efficacy with the conventional intrafascial laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (Intra-LRP). MATERIALS AND
methodsThe clinical data of 475 cases who underwent PPLRP (n = 171) or Intra-LRP (n = 304) between 2012 and 2023 and were followed up for over 1 year were retrospectively analyzed. The baseline characteristics of the two groups were balanced using 1:1 propensity score matching. Lastly, Kaplan-Meier analysis and multivariable logistic regression were performed to assess survival rates and their influencing factors.
resultsAfter matching, 310 cases (155 cases each) were successfully matched. The median follow-up for the two groups was 45 and 47 months, respectively. The rate of positive surgical margins (PSM) was comparable between the two groups at 17.4% and 14.8% (p = 0.537), respectively. Moreover, Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed no significant difference in the biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS) (p = 0.772), cancer-specific survival (CSS) (p = 0.507), and overall survival (OS)(p = 0.065) between the two groups. PPLRP was associated with earlier recovery of urinary control, as evidenced by higher continence rates 24 hours following catheter removal (p = 0.002), as well as at 1 month (p = 0.011), 3 months (p < 0.001), and 6 months (p = 0.020). Regarding sexual function, postoperative IIEF-5 scores were significantly higher in the PPLRP group compared to the intra-LRP group (p < 0.001), and the proportion of patients achieving satisfactory erections for sexual intercourse was 31.0% and 19.4%, respectively (p = 0.018). Finally, multivariate analysis identified surgical technique as the sole factor affecting urinary continence recovery (p = 0.001), while surgical technique (p = 0.042) and age (p = 0.050) were associated with sexual function recovery.
conclusionCompared with traditional Intra-LRP, PPLRP offered superior preservation of the pubovesical complex (PVC) and neurovascular bundle (NVB). Indeed, it facilitated early recovery of urinary continence and sexual function without increasing oncological risk. Besides, it can be feasibly implemented in hospitals equipped with conventional laparoscopic systems.
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.