Robotic Radical Prostatectomy for Patients with Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer Is Feasible: Results of a Single-Institution Study

Ham, Won Sik; Park, Sung Yul; Rha, Koon Ho; Kim, Dong-Won; Choi, Young Deuk

doi:10.1089/lap.2008.0344

Cited by 57 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…22,23 Owing to the existing deficit of clinical data and images, this type of PCa may include the pathological T 2 -T 4 stages, which can be confirmed from the histopathological specimen after surgery. 24 We defined locally advanced PCa as cases with a cT 3 or greater, regardless of the serum PSA or Gleason score after evaluating the DRE and PSA level.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[2][3][4] Nevertheless, the most effective method for locally advanced cases remains controversial. External beam radiation, hormonal therapy, or a combination of both, as well as RP, have been used to treat these patients.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…External beam radiation, hormonal therapy, or a combination of both, as well as RP, have been used to treat these patients. [5][6][7][8] Xylinas et al 9 reported that radiotherapy combined with extended hormone therapy was the first choice for cT 3 PCa. According to the USA National Cancer Institute's guidelines, external beam radiotherapy is the most suitable treatment for the majority of patients with advanced PCa.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to the USA National Cancer Institute's guidelines, external beam radiotherapy is the most suitable treatment for the majority of patients with advanced PCa. 10 According to recent studies, however, the European Association of Urology guidelines regard RP as a primary therapy method in cT 3 disease.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Perioperative complications of radical retropubic prostatectomy in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer: a comparison with clinically localized prostate cancer

Yao¹,

Liu²,

Zhang³

et al. 2012

Asian J Androl

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Perioperative complications of radical retropubic prostatectomy in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer: a comparison with clinically localized prostate cancer

Yao¹,

Liu²,

Zhang³

et al. 2012

Asian J Androl

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…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%

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

Robotic Gastrectomy as an Oncologically Sound Alternative to Laparoscopic Resections for the Treatment of Early-Stage Gastric Cancers

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

827 patients with gastric cancer underwent 236 robotic and 591 laparoscopic radical gastrectomies with curative intent. The patients' data were prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed. Main Outcome Measures:We performed a comparative analysis between the robotic surgery group and laparoscopic surgery group for preoperative patient characteristics, intraoperative factors, and postoperative morbidity and mortality.Results: The robotic group was younger than the laparoscopic group, but other preoperative patient charac-teristics did not differ. The mean operative time for the robotic group (219.5 minutes) was on average 49 minutes longer than the laparoscopic group (170.7 minutes) (P Ͻ .001), while mean blood loss was significantly less in the robotic group (91.6 mL vs 147.9 mL; P=.002). The robotic group had mortality of 0.4% and morbidity of 11.0%, comparable with those of the laparoscopic group (P Ͼ .05). The number of lymph nodes retrieved per level was adequate in both groups and did not differ significantly. Robotic D1ϩ␣ (n = 5), D1ϩ␤ (n=126), and D2 (n=105) dissections retrieved 27.2, 36.7, and 42.4 mean numbers of lymph nodes, respectively. Except for 3 cases in the laparoscopic group, all specimens had negative margins.Conclusions: Our largest comparative study demonstrates robotic gastrectomy to have better short-term and comparable oncologic outcomes compared with laparoscopic gastrectomy. A robotic approach to gastric cancer is a promising alternative to laparoscopic surgery.

show abstract

Robotic Radical Prostatectomy for Patients with Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer Is Feasible: Results of a Single-Institution Study

Abstract: Our results suggest that RP may be performed safely on patients with locally advanced PC.

Cited by 57 publications

References 18 publications

Perioperative complications of radical retropubic prostatectomy in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer: a comparison with clinically localized prostate cancer

Perioperative complications of radical retropubic prostatectomy in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer: a comparison with clinically localized prostate cancer

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

Robotic Gastrectomy as an Oncologically Sound Alternative to Laparoscopic Resections for the Treatment of Early-Stage Gastric Cancers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About