Literature DB >> 12657356

Robotic radical prostatectomy and the Vattikuti Urology Institute technique: an interim analysis of results and technical points.

Mani Menon1, Ashutosh Tewari.   

Abstract

We have performed >350 robotic radical prostatectomies in the last 2 years. A single surgeon (MM) performed 250 of these procedures using a technique developed at our institution, the Vattikuti Urology Institute. This article summarizes the technical highlights and interim results of the Vattikuti Institute Prostatectomy (VIP) technique. We prospectively collected baseline demographic data, such as age, race, body mass index (BMI), serum prostate-specific antigen values, prostate volume, Gleason score, percentage cancer, TNM clinical staging, and comorbidities. Urinary symptoms were measured with the International Prostate Symptom Score, and sexual health with the Sexual Health Inventory of Males. In addition, patients received the Expanded Prostate Inventory Composite at baseline and at 1, 3, 6, 12 and 18 months after the procedure via mail. Data collection is complete on 200 of the first 250 patient cases. Gleason score >or=7 was noted in 40% of patients. The average BMI was high (28), and 86% patients were classified as pathologic stage pT2a to pT2b. The mean operative time was 160 minutes and the mean blood loss was 153 mL. No patient required blood transfusion. At 6 months, 82% of the men who were <60 years of age and 75% of those >60 years of age had return of sexual function, and 64% and 38%, respectively, had sexual intercourse. At 6 months, 96% patients were continent.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12657356     DOI: 10.1016/s0090-4295(03)00116-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  28 in total

Review 1.  Robotics in pediatric surgery: perspectives for imaging.

Authors:  Adrien J Kant; Michael D Klein; Scott E Langenburg
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2004-02-18

Review 2.  Novel techniques for the treatment of localized prostate cancer: evidence of efficacy?

Authors:  Marnie R Robinson; Judd W Moul
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 3.092

3.  Robotically assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a brief review of outcomes.

Authors:  Matthew D Shuford
Journal:  Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent)       Date:  2007-10

Review 4.  Robot-assisted versus pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Francois Rozet; Justin Harmon; Xavier Cathelineau; Eric Barret; Guy Vallancien
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2006-03-17       Impact factor: 4.226

5.  Robotic radical prostatectomy in Australia: initial experience.

Authors:  P J O'Malley; S Van Appledorn; D M Bouchier-Hayes; H Crowe; A J Costello
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2006-03-22       Impact factor: 4.226

6.  [Robotic surgery in urology].

Authors:  S Buse; C Gilfrich; M Hohenfellner
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 7.  Outcomes after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Declan G Murphy; Benjamin J Challacombe; Anthony J Costello
Journal:  Asian J Androl       Date:  2008-12-01       Impact factor: 3.285

8.  Initial experience with robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in the Canadian health care system.

Authors:  Joseph L Chin; Patrick P Luke; Stephen E Pautler
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 1.862

9.  Vascular targeted photodynamic therapy for localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Herbert Lepor
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2008

10.  Is the transition from open to robotic prostatectomy fair to your patients? A single-surgeon comparison with 2-year follow-up.

Authors:  Robert B Nadler; Jessica T Casey; Lee C Zhao; Neema Navai; Zachary L Smith; Ali Zhumkhawala; Amanda M Macejko
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2009-11-19
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.