ArticleCureus2026
Outcomes After Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy Versus da Vinci Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy.
Article in Cureus, 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
Purpose The study aimed to compare perioperative outcomes, early biochemical results, and recovery of urinary continence following laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) with da Vinci robot-assisted LRP (RALRP) in a group of men with favorable low- and intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer at a single hospital center. Materials and methods In this retrospective longitudinal study, we analyzed the clinical data of 48 patients with prostate cancer. Among them, 34 intervened with LRP and 14 with RALRP using the da Vinci system at Angeles del Carmen Hospital in Guadalajara, Mexico, from March 2023 to July 2025. The variables included were patient demographics and clinical and surgical data. Statistical analyses comprised both descriptive and parametric tests. Results Median age was 66 years. RALRP demonstrated longer operative time (198 min vs. 129 min, p≤0.001) and more blood loss (100-500 mL, 88% vs. 64% in RALRP, p=0.02). Continence recovery at 3 months was 70% after RALRP, compared with 65% after LRP and >90% at 12 months in both groups. At six-month follow-up, 95% had a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level <0.2 ng/mL; no patient required salvage therapy. Conclusions In our study, both surgical techniques yielded good oncological results, with patients in both groups showing PSA levels indicating cure. However, continued follow-up of the population and an increased sample size are necessary.
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.