ReviewInvestigative and clinical urology2026
The evolving landscape of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: A comprehensive review of surgical techniques.
Review in Investigative and clinical urology, 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.
- Adoption of single-port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy following multiport xi experience: lessons from a learning curve analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) has evolved from a novel minimally invasive option to the standard of care for localized prostate cancer. As metrics for success expand to the pentafecta of outcomes, surgical techniques have diversified. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the contemporary RARP landscape, comparing technical modifications aimed at minimizing morbidity and optimizing functional preservation. We systematically reviewed the literature on various RARP approaches, including standard transperitoneal (TP), extraperitoneal (EP), single-port (SP), and transvesical (TV) techniques, and evaluated functional preservation strategies-specifically Retzius-sparing (RS) and intrafascial nerve-sparing approaches-focusing on trade-offs between functional recovery and oncological safety. While TP-RARP remains the standard, EP-RARP offers advantages in patients with prior abdominal surgery by avoiding the peritoneal cavity. The SP platform demonstrates superior pain control and cosmetic results versus multi-port (MP) systems. The novel TV-RARP approach allows exceptionally rapid continence recovery and same-day discharge but is limited by prostate size and lymph node dissection capability. RS-RARP provides significantly higher early continence rates, though this benefit is associated with increased positive surgical margins. Similarly, aggressive nerve-sparing techniques improve potency but require careful risk stratification to ensure oncological control. Surgical experience significantly impacts operative efficiency and margins, though less so for continence. The optimal RARP technique is no longer a single standard but a personalized, evidence-based decision: surgeons should individualize the platform and approach-whether MP, SP, TV, or RS-to the patient's anatomy, cancer risk, and functional priorities to achieve optimal outcomes.
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.