ArticleBJUI compass2026
Urinary continence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with complete urethral preservation.
Article in BJUI compass, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Urinary continence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with complete urethral preservation.BJUI compass · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the functional, oncological and learning-curve outcomes of the complete urethral preservation (CUP) technique during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in a large single-centre cohort. Patients and Methods: We retrospectively analysed patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) between June 2021 and August 2025 by a single high-volume surgeon. Outcomes were compared by CUP status. Continence was assessed at early (3-6 months) and late (12 months) follow-up, using a strict binary definition and with pad usage recorded separately. Oncological assessment included margin status (MS) and biochemical recurrence (BCR) over 3 years. Multivariable Cox regression assessed predictors of BCR. The learning curve was evaluated using LOESS-based probability smoothing. Results: A total of 459 patients were included, with successful CUP achieved in 316 (68.8%). Early continence was higher in the CUP cohort than in non-CUP patients (77% vs 67%, Conclusions: CUP is associated with improved early continence recovery and higher rates of pad-free status following RARP, without compromising margin status or biochemical recurrence. These findings support CUP as a safe and reproducible continence-preserving technique, with the likelihood of successful CUP increasing with surgical experience.
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.