Open versus robotic radical prostatectomy

Lepor, H.

doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2005.09.002

Cited by 13 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The morbidities could be managed safely. Incontinence rate was comparable to other series (4)(5)(6)(7). This study also concluded that LRP was a safe procedure even in the initial period.…”

Section: Commentssupporting

confidence: 83%

“…A number of reported data suggest that LRP has several advantages such as small incision, fast recovery, less pain, magnified picture for accurate dissection and reduced blood loss. However, LRP is a difficult procedure that needs surgical skill and long learning curve (7,11). Outcomes of radical prostatectomy are also depended on several factors including surgical skill and experience of the surgeon and surgical team.…”

Section: Commentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For over a decade, minimal invasive surgery techniques have been widely used for prostate cancer in urology, and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) in particular has become a standard treatment for clinically localized prostate cancer (4)(5)(6). Reported data in western �linical Urolo�� linical Urolo�� countries have shown that early LRP results could be comparable to ORP in terms of operative parameters, morbidity, urinary function, sexual function and oncological outcome (4,(7)(8)(9). Furthermore, several studies have shown various advantages of LRP.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Perioperative outcomes of open radical prostatectomy versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in Asian men: comparison of two initial series by the same surgeon

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To compare the perioperative outcomes in 2 initial series of open radical prostatectomy (ORP) and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) in Asian men with prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: From March 1999 to February 2007, the first 100 consecutive patients who underwent ORP and the first 100 consecutive patients who underwent LRP by the same surgeon (SL) were assessed. Mean age, clinical stage, preoperative PSA level, Gleason score, operative time, estimated blood loss, blood transfusion rate, perioperative complications, pathological stage and margin status were compared between the 2 groups. Results: For each 100 patients in ORP and LRP, mean age and clinical stage were not significantly different. The operative time in LRP was significantly longer than ORP (188 ± 55 versus 114 ± 31 minute, p value = 0.01). Mean estimated blood loss and blood transfusion rate in LRP was significantly lower than ORP, 521 ± 328 versus 809 ± 510 mL (p value = 0.03) and 27% versus 55% (p value = 0.01), respectively. For pathological organ confined disease, the free surgical margin rate of ORP and LRP was not significantly different (88.9% versus 91.3%, respectively, p = 0.58). There was no significant major complication in either group. Conclusions: For initial experience by a single surgeon, LRP is comparable to ORP with no significant morbidity. LRP had longer operative time. However, LRP decreased blood loss and blood transfusion. For localized prostate cancer, free surgical margin rate of ORP and LRP was not significantly different.

show abstract

“…The morbidities could be managed safely. Incontinence rate was comparable to other series (4)(5)(6)(7). This study also concluded that LRP was a safe procedure even in the initial period.…”

Section: Commentssupporting

confidence: 83%

Section: Commentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Perioperative outcomes of open radical prostatectomy versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in Asian men: comparison of two initial series by the same surgeon

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These results have been echoed by other contemporary series which use a limited infraumbilical incision, thereby limiting the morbidity of the open approach (23). Contemporary RRP series are therefore comparable to any laparoscopic or robotic series to date and have led to questioning of where the true benefits of the minimally invasive approach lie (24). The resulting suggestion is that the improved visualization afforded with telescopic technology allows for more precise dissection of the prostate from the adjacent neurovascular bundles and more accurate dissection and reconstruction of the urethra-vesical anastomosis.…”

Section: Comparison Of the Three Operative Approachesmentioning

confidence: 96%

Robotic prostatectomy: the first UK experience

Mayer

Winkler

Aggarwal

et al. 2006

Int. J. Med. Robotics Comput. Assist. Surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Parameters indicative of the learning curve are comparable to existing published initial series of other robotic centres. The use of teamwork has enabled us to provide safe and time-efficient training for four surgeons simultaneously. The structured approach used in this setting demonstrates that urological surgeons of varying laparoscopic experience can acquire the skills necessary to competently perform laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

show abstract

“…Although there are developing data to suggest a quicker return of urinary continence, the only objective, consistently proven benefit of robotic versus open prostatectomy to date is reduced intraoperative blood loss, which is of questionable clinical significance. 15 Identical hospital stay 16 and postoperative pain 17 have been reported for both procedures. Therefore, unlike the consistently demonstrated advantages of laparoscopic nephrectomy, the morbidity of robotic versus open prostatectomy appear to be equivalent.…”

mentioning

confidence: 94%