ArticleInternational journal of clinical oncology2026
Comparison of surgical outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy between residents under our training curriculum and experienced surgeons: a propensity score-matched analysis.
Article in International journal of clinical oncology, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe developed a structured robot-assisted training curriculum for urology residents with limited prior experience in open and laparoscopic surgeries. We evaluated the curriculum by comparing outcomes of resident-performed robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with those of experienced, proctor-certified surgeons.
methodsFrom 53 resident-performed and 175 non-resident-performed robot-assisted radical prostatectomy cases, propensity score matching (up to 1:2 ratio) yielded 46 resident-performed and 83 non-resident-performed cases. We compared operative and console times, estimated blood loss, perioperative complications, positive surgical margins, and immediate urinary continence after catheter removal. Our training program included video lectures and dry-laboratory training using procedure-specific models (three-dimensional pelvic model and vesicourethral anastomosis models) and optional low-cost tasks.
resultsOperative time (median [IQR]) was longer in resident-performed cases (249 [227-284] vs 208 [182-237] min; p < 0.001), as was total console time (213 [188-244] vs 166 [144-192] min; p < 0.001) and console time excluding pelvic lymph node dissection (200 [186-222] vs 158 [137-180] min; p < 0.001). When the procedure was subdivided into five phases, from bladder takedown to vesicourethral anastomosis, residents required longer times for all phases (all p ≤ 0.002). There were no significant differences between the two groups in estimated blood loss, positive surgical margin rates, immediate urinary continence, or perioperative complications.
conclusionsIn this study, residents trained under the curriculum performed surgery safely with acceptable surgical outcomes, despite longer operative times. These findings indicate that a structured training curriculum mitigates potential risks associated with resident participation in robotic surgery. Further refinement of standardized training models is necessary to enhance operative efficiency.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41964804What 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.