Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41910818›Full record

Observational studyJournal of robotic surgery2026

Teaching in radical prostatectomy is safe: a multicenter prospective registry analysis.

Nicola Giudici, Raphael Röthlisberger, Nicolas Arnold, Daniel Phat Nguyen, Agostino Mattei, Massimo Valerio, Daniel Eberli, Dominik Abt, Räto Strebel, Daniel Engeler and 4 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in Journal of robotic surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Nicola GiudiciDepartment of Urology, University Hospital of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. nicolagiudici@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-9844-1799
Raphael RöthlisbergerDepartment of Urology, University Hospital of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Nicolas ArnoldDepartment of Urology, University Hospital of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Daniel Phat NguyenDepartment of Urology, Réseau Hospitalier Neuchâtelois, Neuchâtel, Switzerland.
Agostino MatteiDepartment of Urology, University of Lucerne, Luzerner Kantonsspital, Lucerne, Switzerland.
Massimo ValerioDivision of Urology, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.
Daniel EberliDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Dominik AbtDepartment of Urology, Spitalzentrum Biel, Centre Hospitalier Bienne, Biel, Switzerland.
Räto StrebelDepartment of Urology, Cantonal Hospital of Graubünden, Chur, Switzerland.
Daniel EngelerDepartment of Urology, Cantonal Hospital of St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland.
George ThalmannDepartment of Urology, University Hospital of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Swiss Urology Registry Collaborative Group
Laila SchneidewindDepartment of Urology, University Hospital of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Beat RothDepartment of Urology, University Hospital of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To evaluate the impact of teaching during radical prostatectomy in a nationwide prospective registry, assessing whether teaching influences perioperative or pathological outcomes. Data were extracted from the Swiss Urology Prostatectomy Registry, a nationwide quality-monitoring program including all certified training centers. Teaching was defined as procedures performed by a supervised trainee as primary operator. Baseline and perioperative outcomes were compared descriptively, and multivariable regression models assessed associations between teaching status and perioperative and pathological outcomes. A total of 7,607 men underwent radical prostatectomy between 2020 and 2025, of whom 825 (10.8%) were teaching cases. In multivariable analyses, teaching operations were associated with a higher likelihood of any 30-day complication (OR 1.41; 95% CI 1.09–1.82; p = 0.008) and longer operative time, with an adjusted mean increase of 31 min (95% CI 26–37; p < 0.001). Teaching status was not associated with severe complications (Clavien–Dindo ≥ III; OR 0.62; 95% CI 0.24–1.36; p = 0.283), transfusion requirement (OR 1.56; 95% CI 0.36–4.60; p = 0.478), positive surgical margins (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.81–1.22; p = 0.960), nerve-sparing (OR 1.12; 95% CI 0.90–1.39; p = 0.306), or lymph node yield (adjusted mean difference + 0.5 nodes; 95% CI − 0.3 to 1.4; p = 0.226). Teaching during radical prostatectomy is safe and does not compromise surgical or pathological outcomes. Although longer operative times were observed, supervised trainee involvement can be safely integrated into structured training programs.

Indexed as

ProstatectomyProstatic NeoplasmsRegistriesRobotic Surgical ProceduresTeachingAgedHumansMaleMiddle AgedOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsProspective StudiesTreatment OutcomeComplicationsEducationProstatectomyTeachingTrainee

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.