ArticleFrontiers in surgery2026
Retrograde robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in a patient with localized prostate cancer: a case report.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Prostate cancer represents one of the most prevalent malignancies affecting the male population worldwide. With increasing survival rates, greater attention has been directed toward postoperative complications, particularly erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence. Patient concerns: A 70-year-old male patient with histologically confirmed prostate carcinoma reported lower urinary tract symptoms including dysuria and nocturia. Diagnosis: The pathological diagnosis was organ-confined acinar adenocarcinoma of the prostate, pT2, ISUP Grade Group 1, with negative surgical margins (R0). Interventions and outcomes: After pelvic ultrasound, consultation with an anesthesiologist and a cardiologist, the patient underwent retrograde robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Conclusion: This case illustrates the practical application of the retrograde approach, emphasizing its anatomical rationale and technical considerations rather than demonstrating superiority over conventional antegrade nerve sparing. Careful patient selection, sound anatomical knowledge, and adherence to oncological principles remain essential for balancing cancer control with functional preservation. Further prospective comparative studies are required to clarify the role of retrograde nerve-sparing dissection in contemporary robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.
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.