Comprehensive Prospective Comparative Analysis of Outcomes Between Open and Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy Conducted in 2003 to 2005

Touijer, Karim; Eastham, James A.; Secín, Fernando P.; Romero-Otero, Javier; Serio, Angel M.; Stasi, Jason; Sánchez-Salas, Rafael; Vickers, Andrew J.; Reuter, Victor E.; Scardino, Peter T.; Guillonneau, Bertrand

doi:10.1016/j.juro.2008.01.026

Cited by 161 publications

(100 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Two recent meta-analyses of studies that directly compared RRP, LRP, and RARP confirmed that RARP is associated with decreased operative blood loss and decreased risk of transfusion 13,14 It is noteworthy to mention, however, that some transfusion rates reported in RRP series are significantly biased by autologous blood transfusion protocols, which have a clearly more liberal indication for transfusion during the procedure. 33 The mean in-hospital stay was higher for LRP series than in RRP and RARP in our review (4.87, 3.48, and 1.43 days, respectively). These results, however, probably reflected the differences in the location where the series were carried out.…”

Section: Perioperative Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 51%

“…The pathologic stage and PSM rates for open, RLP, and RARP series are summarized on Table 4, 16-22,24-28,30,31,33,55-57 Table 5, 33,37,38,[40][41][42][44][45][46][47] and Table 6, 30,31,35,[48][49][50][51][52][53][54]58 respectively. The pathologic stage in the RARP series was of 78.2% pT 2 tumors and 20.5% pT 3 tumors.…”

Section: Oncologic Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Postoperative urinary continence outcomes for RARP, LRP, and RRP are tabulated in Table 7, 16,17,[23][24][25]27,[32][33][34][35][59][60][61] Table 9. 35,48,50,51,53,58,63,64 Direct comparisons for urinary continence rates between different prostatectomy series are difficult because of variations in definitions, data collection methods, and length of follow-up.…”

Section: Urinary Continence Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The potency rates for RRP, LRP, and RARP are detailed on Table 10 17,23,24,32-34,59,60,65-68 Table 11, 33,38,40,41,[44][45][46]62,69 and Table 12. 35,48,51,53,63,64 As for continence, comparisons of the potency rates between different series are extremely difficult.…”

Section: Potency Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Retropubic, Laparoscopic, and Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Critical Review of Outcomes Reported by High-Volume Centers

Coelho

Rocco

Patel

et al. 2010

Journal of Endourology

246

149

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To critically review perioperative outcomes, positive surgical margin (PSM) rates, and functional outcomes of several large series of retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP), laparoscopic RP (LRP), and robotassisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) currently available in the literature. Methods: A Medline database search was performed from November 1994 to May 2009, using medical subject heading search terms ''prostatectomy'' and ''Outcome Assessment (Health Care)'' and text words ''retropubic,'' ''robotic,'' and ''laparoscopic.'' Only studies with a sample size of 250 or more patients were considered. Weighted means were calculated for all outcomes using the number of patients included in each study as the weighing factor. Results: We identified 30 articles for RRP, 14 for LRP, and 14 for RARP. The mean intraoperative and postoperative RRP transfusion rates for RRP, LRP, and RARP were 20.1%, 3.5%, and 1.4%, respectively. The weighted mean postoperative complication rates for RRP, LRP, and RARP were 10.3% (4.8% to 26.9%), 10.98% (8.9 to 27.7%), and 10.3% (4.3% to 15.7%), respectively. RARP revealed a mean overall PSM rate of 13.6%, whereas LRP and RRP yielded a PSM of 21.3% and 24%, respectively. The weighted mean continence rates at 12 month follow-up for RRP, LRP, and RARP were 79%, 84.8%, and 92%, respectively. The weighted mean potency rates for patients who underwent unilateral or bilateral nerve sparing, at 12 month follow-up, were 43.1% and 60.6% for RRP, 31.1% and 54% for LRP, and 59.9% and 93.5% for RARP. Conclusion: RRP, LRP, and RARP performed in high-volume centers are safe options for treatment of patients with localized prostate cancer, presenting similar overall complication rates. LRP and RARP, however, are associated with decreased operative blood loss and decreased risk of transfusion when compared with RRP. Our analysis including high-volume centers also showed lower weighted mean PSM rates and higher continence and potency rates after RARP compared with RRP and LRP. However, the lack of randomized trials precludes definitive conclusions.

show abstract

Section: Perioperative Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 51%

Section: Oncologic Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Urinary Continence Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Potency Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Retropubic, Laparoscopic, and Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Critical Review of Outcomes Reported by High-Volume Centers

Coelho

Rocco

Patel

et al. 2010

Journal of Endourology

246

149

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, in Europe, interest in LRP continued and the procedure enjoyed a new wave of popularity following the work by Guillonneau et al [4] in 1999. Outcome data from centres of excellence showed cancer control rates, urinary continence and potency rates comparable to those of ORP, but with the additional benefit to patients of a minimally invasive approach [5,6]. However, LRP is a difficult procedure with a long learning curve, and concerns over this and long-term oncologic efficacy resulted in poor uptake of this procedure, particularly in the United States.…”

Section: Evolution Of Ralrp From 2000 To 2009mentioning

confidence: 99%

Outcomes after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

Murphy¹,

Challacombe²,

Costello³

2008

Asian J Androl

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neoplasms of the Prostate

Logothetis

Kim

Davis

et al. 2017

Holland‐Frei Cancer Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Overview Cancer of the prostate is the most commonly diagnosed nonskin neoplasm and the second leading cause of cancer‐related mortality in men in the United States. Considerable advances have been made in screening, diagnosis, and therapy options, particularly in advanced disease, but controversies about the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer, especially in the areas of screening and choice of therapy, continue to evolve. Controversies in advanced disease states have shifted from prognostication to prediction, and current treatment considerations are focused on optimization of sequence or combinations of therapy, determining the role of local control and bone targeting. It is anticipated that addressing these knowledge gaps will lead to an integrated and more effective treatment strategies. Further advances in therapy can be achieved by development of new agents with unique mechanisms of action and rational integration into combination therapies. Prostate cancer awareness, clinical application of improved biopsy schemes, and advances in imaging combined with the widespread use of prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) have resulted in increased detection of prostate cancer. The evolving use of the serum PSA concentration and its change over time have not been paralleled by studies that tested the relevance of those findings until the results of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) and the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial were first published in 2009. Though many of the apparent discrepancies between these trials can be accounted for by trial design and patient cross‐contamination, they brought to the forefront the dilemma of overdiagnosis and overtreatment and the urgent need to improve the accuracy of clinically significant prostate cancer. It is hoped that replacement of the current morphologic and anatomic classification of prostate cancer with one based on improved understanding of biology will lead to molecular classification and bring closer a personalized management of this complex disease. Salient features that distinguish prostate cancer from other malignancies and that frame the dilemmas surrounding it are its striking age‐dependent incidence, with progressively increasing frequency with increasing age; the variable lethality of morphologically identified cancers; the central role of androgen signaling; and the preponderance of bone‐forming metastases on its lethal progression. The important advances made in each of these areas will, in the near future, modify the approaches currently used to prevent, prognosticate, and treat prostate cancer.

show abstract

Comprehensive Prospective Comparative Analysis of Outcomes Between Open and Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy Conducted in 2003 to 2005

Cited by 161 publications

References 19 publications

Retropubic, Laparoscopic, and Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Critical Review of Outcomes Reported by High-Volume Centers

Retropubic, Laparoscopic, and Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Critical Review of Outcomes Reported by High-Volume Centers

Outcomes after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

Neoplasms of the Prostate

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About