Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42390762›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2026

Safety and efficacy of different surgical approaches in single-port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy based on propensity score matching analysis.

Jin-Chun Qi, Liang Liu, Sheng Tang, Hao-Xuan Yang, Lorenzo Santodirocco, Ying-Ran Xia, Luca Alfredo Morgantini, Ruben Sauer Calvo, Chang-Bao Qu, Ya-Xuan Wang and 1 more

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Jin-Chun Qi *Department of Urology, the Second Hospital of Hebei Medical University, No.215 Heping West Road, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, China. qijinchun@hebmu.edu.cn.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-6600-170X
Liang Liu *Urology Department, Chongqing University Central Hospital, Fourth People's Hospital of Chongqing, Chongqing Emergency Medical Center, Chongqing University, Chongqing, China.
Sheng Tang *Department of Urology, the Second Hospital of Hebei Medical University, No.215 Heping West Road, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, China.
Hao-Xuan Yang *Department of Urology, the Second Hospital of Hebei Medical University, No.215 Heping West Road, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, China.
Lorenzo SantodiroccoDepartment of Urology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Ying-Ran XiaDepartment of Urology, the Second Hospital of Hebei Medical University, No.215 Heping West Road, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, China.
Luca Alfredo MorgantiniDepartment of Urology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Ruben Sauer CalvoDepartment of Urology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Chang-Bao QuDepartment of Urology, Shijiazhuang People's Hospital, Shijiazhuang, 050011, Hebei, China. 27000416@hebmu.edu.cn.
Ya-Xuan WangDepartment of Urology, the Second Hospital of Hebei Medical University, No.215 Heping West Road, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, China. wangyaxuan87@hebmu.edu.cn.
Simone CrivellaroDepartment of Urology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. crivesim@uic.edu.

Funding

Natural Science Foundation of Hebei Province H2025206073
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe optimal surgical approach (transperitoneal vs. extraperitoneal) for single-port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (SP-RARP) remains a subject of ongoing debate, with limited high-quality evidence to compare their safety and efficacy. This study aimed to compare the safety, effectiveness, and functional outcomes of transperitoneal (SP-TPRP) and extraperitoneal (SP-EPRP) approaches in SP-RARP using propensity score matching (PSM).

methodsThis retrospective study analyzed 211 consecutive patients who underwent SP-RARP at a tertiary referral center (2018-2024): 58 SP-TPRP and 153 SP-EPRP. PSM was performed to balance baseline covariates. Perioperative outcomes were compared between the two groups. Time to urinary continence recovery was assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis.

resultsAfter PSM, 55 patients per group were analyzed. The SP-EPRP group demonstrated significantly higher estimated blood loss (150.0 vs. 100.0 mL, p = 0.021) and a shorter hospital stay (1 vs. 2 days, p < 0.001), and lower pain scores(0.0 vs. 4.0, p < 0.001). Gastrointestinal complications occurred exclusively in SP-TPRP (n = 5), while lymphoceles only in SP-EPRP (n = 4). No significant differences were found in operative time, overall complications, short-term oncological outcomes or function recovery. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed no significant difference in time to continence recovery between approaches (p = 0.32).

conclusionsBoth approaches achieve comparable oncological outcomes, perioperative safety, and functional recovery. SP-EPRP was associated with shorter hospital stay and lower early postoperative pain, but higher estimated blood loss. Both approaches appear clinically feasible, and prospective studies with longer follow-up are warranted to validate these findings.

Indexed as

ProstatectomyProstatic NeoplasmsRobotic Surgical ProceduresAgedHumansMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsPropensity ScoreRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeExtraperitoneal approachRadical prostatectomySingle-port robotic surgerySurgical outcomesTransperitoneal approachUrinary continence

Identifiers

PMID42390762
PMCPMC13328130

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.