ArticleBMC urology2026
AirSeal
Article in BMC urology, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRobot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) requires a stable pneumoperitoneum to maintain optimal surgical conditions. The AirSeal
objectiveTo compare perioperative, oncological, and postoperative recovery outcomes between the AirSeal system and conventional insufflation systems during RARP.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent RARP at a high-volume tertiary center in a retrospective before-and-after cohort design. Patients were stratified according to the insufflation system used during surgery: conventional insufflation system (CIS) or the AirSeal system. Demographic characteristics, perioperative parameters, pathological outcomes, postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo), postoperative pain scores and opioid consumption were evaluated.
resultsA total of 749 patients were included (CIS: 398; AirSeal: 351). Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were comparable between the groups. Operative time was significantly shorter in the AirSeal group (183 ± 77.7 vs. 217.4 ± 73.0 min; p < 0.001). Estimated blood loss, transfusion rates, and length of hospital stay were similar between the groups. Pathological stage distribution differed between the groups, with a higher proportion of locally advanced disease (≥pT3) in the AirSeal cohort (49.3% vs 39.2%; p = 0.005). However, other oncological outcomes, including pathological ISUP grade distribution, lymph node involvement, and positive surgical margin rates, were comparable. Overall postoperative complication rates were similar between the groups; however, high-grade complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥III) occurred less frequently in the AirSeal group. Postoperative pain scores at 1, 6, and 24 hours were significantly lower in the AirSeal group (all p < 0.001), postoperative morphine consumption at 24 hours was also significantly reduced (p < 0.001).
conclusionsUse of the AirSeal insufflation system during RARP was associated with shorter operative times, lower postoperative pain scores, and less frequent high-grade complications. Positive surgical margin rates and lymph node involvement were comparable between the groups. However, given the retrospective before-and-after design, differences in surgical periods and pneumoperitoneum pressure between the groups, these findings should be considered observational and hypothesis-generating.
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.