Literature DB >> 17171562

Major urological oncological surgeries can be performed using minimally invasive robotic or laparoscopic methods with similar early perioperative outcomes compared to conventional open methods.

Samuel Sterrett1, Tony Mammen, Tanya Nazemi, Anton Galich, Gregory Peters, Lynette Smith, K C Balaji.   

Abstract

Robotic and laparoscopic surgical methods (RLM) are increasingly being used for urological oncological procedures. We compared the outcomes in a cohort of patients undergoing procedures by either RLM or open methods (OM) at a single institution. The data on 279 consecutive patients undergoing major urological oncological procedures from September 2000 to June 2005 was entered into a Microsoft Access database and queried. Continuous variables were compared using the Wilcoxon rank sum test and categorical variables were compared using Fisher's exact test. P values were compared to a significance level of 0.05. Of the 279 patients who underwent urological oncological surgeries, OM and RLM were used in 139 (49.8%) and 140 (50.2%) of patients, respectively. Numbers of perioperative mortalities and morbidities were not statistically different in the OM group versus the RLM group. Primary urological oncological surgeries can be performed without significantly increased perioperative complications by RLM compared to OM.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17171562     DOI: 10.1007/s00345-006-0140-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Urol        ISSN: 0724-4983            Impact factor:   4.226


  21 in total

1.  Use of new technology in endourology and laparoscopy by american urologists: internet and postal survey.

Authors:  H L Kim; C M Hollowell; R V Patel; G T Bales; R V Clayman; G S Gerber
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2000-11-01       Impact factor: 2.649

Review 2.  Role of robotics in laparoscopic urologic surgery.

Authors:  Louis Eichel; Thomas E Ahlering; Ralph V Clayman
Journal:  Urol Clin North Am       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 2.241

Review 3.  Laparoscopic approaches in urology.

Authors:  Alaa Abdelmaksoud; Chandra Shekhar Biyani; Fariborz Bagheri; Günter Janetschek
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 5.588

4.  Choosing the optimal endpoint(s) for a clinical trial on transfusion.

Authors:  Jean-François Hardy; Richard B Weiskopf
Journal:  Transfusion       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 3.157

5.  Cancer statistics, 2005.

Authors:  Ahmedin Jemal; Taylor Murray; Elizabeth Ward; Alicia Samuels; Ram C Tiwari; Asma Ghafoor; Eric J Feuer; Michael J Thun
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2005 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 508.702

6.  Feasibility of robotic radical nephrectomy--initial results of single-institution pilot study.

Authors:  Douglas W Klingler; George P Hemstreet; K C Balaji
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 2.649

7.  Standardization of radical cystectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection for bladder cancer: a collaborative group report.

Authors:  Harry Herr; Cheryl Lee; Sam Chang; Seth Lerner
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 8.  Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a new horizon.

Authors:  Jihad H Kaouk; Inderbir S Gill
Journal:  Curr Opin Urol       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 2.309

9.  Feasibility of robot-assisted totally intracorporeal laparoscopic ileal conduit urinary diversion: initial results of a single institutional pilot study.

Authors:  K C Balaji; Paulos Yohannes; Corrigan L McBride; Dmitry Oleynikov; George P Hemstreet
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 2.649

10.  Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy: techniques, results and oncological outcome in 125 consecutive cases.

Authors:  Andreas H Wille; Jan Roigas; Serdar Deger; Maximilian Tüllmann; Ingolf Türk; Stefan A Loening
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 20.096

View more
  5 in total

1.  A consensus document on robotic surgery.

Authors:  D M Herron; M Marohn
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2007-12-28       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 2.  Robotic and laparoscopic radical cystectomy in the management of bladder cancer.

Authors:  Ashok K Hemal
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 3.  Robotic versus open radical cystectomy: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Leilei Xia; Xianjin Wang; Tianyuan Xu; Xiaohua Zhang; Zhaowei Zhu; Liang Qin; Xiang Zhang; Chen Fang; Minguang Zhang; Shan Zhong; Zhoujun Shen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-03-31       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Open versus robotic radical cystectomy with intracorporeal Studer diversion.

Authors:  Ali Fuat Atmaca; Abdullah Erdem Canda; Bahri Gok; Ziya Akbulut; Serkan Altinova; Mevlana Derya Balbay
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2015 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.172

5.  Complications and oncologic outcomes following robot-assisted radical cystectomy: What is the real benefit?

Authors:  Dong Jae Bak; You Jin Lee; Myeong Jin Woo; Jae-Wook Chung; Yun-Sok Ha; Hyun Tae Kim; Tae-Hwan Kim; Eun Sang Yoo; Bup Wan Kim; Tae Gyun Kwon
Journal:  Investig Clin Urol       Date:  2016-07-06
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.