ReviewCureus2026
Nerve Stimulation Monitoring Devices in Radical Prostatectomy: A Narrative Review.
Review 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Preservation of neurovascular bundles during radical prostatectomy is crucial for postoperative erectile function and urinary continence. Intraoperative nerve stimulation and neurophysiological monitoring devices have been developed to assist surgeons in identifying and preserving cavernous nerves, aiming to improve functional outcomes. A comprehensive review of the literature was conducted using the PubMed database, focusing on studies published within the last 10-15 years addressing intraoperative nerve stimulation and monitoring during radical prostatectomy. Multiple monitoring techniques have been described, including intracorporeal pressure measurement, penile tumescence monitoring, laser Doppler flowmetry, urethral pressure profilometry, and electromyography. While these methods are technically feasible and provide real-time functional feedback, evidence demonstrating a consistent and statistically significant improvement in postoperative erectile function or urinary continence remains limited. Current data do not support the routine use of intraoperative nerve stimulation monitoring devices during radical prostatectomy. Surgical experience, meticulous anatomical dissection, and minimal tissue manipulation remain the most important determinants of functional outcomes. Further large-scale, standardized prospective studies are required.
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.