Literature DB >> 21103791

Evidence-based comparison of robotic and open radical prostatectomy.

William T Lowrance1, Tatum V Tarin, Shahrokh F Shariat.   

Abstract

The rapid adoption of robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) has occurred despite a lack of high-quality evidence demonstrating its oncologic advantages, safety, or cost effectiveness compared with open radical retropubic prostatectomy (ORP). This review examines the current literature comparing ORP and RALP, focusing on perioperative, oncologic, functional, and economic outcomes.

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21103791      PMCID: PMC4237275          DOI: 10.1100/tsw.2010.218

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  ScientificWorldJournal        ISSN: 1537-744X


  41 in total

1.  Robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparison of one surgeon's outcomes.

Authors:  Thomas E Ahlering; David Woo; Louis Eichel; David I Lee; Robert Edwards; Douglas W Skarecky
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 2.649

Review 2.  Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy, a technique of robotic radical prostatectomy for management of localized carcinoma of the prostate: experience of over 1100 cases.

Authors:  Mani Menon; Ashutosh Tewari; James O Peabody; Alok Shrivastava; Sanjeev Kaul; Akshay Bhandari; Ashok K Hemal
Journal:  Urol Clin North Am       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 2.241

3.  Prognostic impact of positive surgical margins in surgically treated prostate cancer: multi-institutional assessment of 5831 patients.

Authors:  Pierre I Karakiewicz; James A Eastham; Markus Graefen; Ilias Cagiannos; Phillip D Stricker; Eric Klein; Thomas Cangiano; Fritz H Schröder; Peter T Scardino; Michael W Kattan
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 2.649

4.  Robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus radical retropubic prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer: comparison of short-term biochemical recurrence-free survival.

Authors:  Daniel A Barocas; Shady Salem; Yakup Kordan; S Duke Herrell; Sam S Chang; Peter E Clark; Rodney Davis; Roxelyn Baumgartner; Sharon Phillips; Michael S Cookson; Joseph A Smith
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2010-01-18       Impact factor: 7.450

5.  Surgery-related complications in 1253 robot-assisted and 485 open retropubic radical prostatectomies at the Karolinska University Hospital, Sweden.

Authors:  Stefan Carlsson; Andreas E Nilsson; Martin C Schumacher; Martin N Jonsson; Daniela S Volz; Gunnar Steineck; Peter N Wiklund
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 2.649

6.  Impotence following radical prostatectomy: insight into etiology and prevention.

Authors:  P C Walsh; P J Donker
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1982-09       Impact factor: 7.450

7.  Comparative effectiveness of prostate cancer surgical treatments: a population based analysis of postoperative outcomes.

Authors:  William T Lowrance; Elena B Elkin; Lindsay M Jacks; David S Yee; Thomas L Jang; Vincent P Laudone; Bertrand D Guillonneau; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2010-02-25       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  Variations in morbidity after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Colin B Begg; Elyn R Riedel; Peter B Bach; Michael W Kattan; Deborah Schrag; Joan L Warren; Peter T Scardino
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2002-04-11       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  A prospective, non-randomized trial comparing robot-assisted laparoscopic and retropubic radical prostatectomy in one European institution.

Authors:  Vincenzo Ficarra; Giacomo Novara; Simonetta Fracalanza; Carolina D'Elia; Silvia Secco; Massimo Iafrate; Stefano Cavalleri; Walter Artibani
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2009-03-05       Impact factor: 5.588

10.  Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Jim C Hu; Xiangmei Gu; Stuart R Lipsitz; Michael J Barry; Anthony V D'Amico; Aaron C Weinberg; Nancy L Keating
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2009-10-14       Impact factor: 56.272

View more
  7 in total

Review 1.  Evidence-based surgery: barriers, solutions, and the role of evidence synthesis.

Authors:  George Garas; Amel Ibrahim; Hutan Ashrafian; Kamran Ahmed; Vanash Patel; Koji Okabayashi; Petros Skapinakis; Ara Darzi; Thanos Athanasiou
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 3.352

Review 2.  Short-, Intermediate-, and Long-term Quality of Life Outcomes Following Radical Prostatectomy for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Vinay Prabhu; Ted Lee; Tyler R McClintock; Herbert Lepor
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2013

3.  Costs of medical care after open or minimally invasive prostate cancer surgery: a population-based analysis.

Authors:  William T Lowrance; James A Eastham; David S Yee; Vincent P Laudone; Brian Denton; Peter T Scardino; Elena B Elkin
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2011-10-24       Impact factor: 6.860

4.  Direct-to-consumer Internet promotion of robotic prostatectomy exhibits varying quality of information.

Authors:  Joshua N Mirkin; William T Lowrance; Andrew H Feifer; John P Mulhall; James E Eastham; Elena B Elkin
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 6.301

5.  Benchmarks for operative outcomes of robotic and open radical prostatectomy: results from the Health Professionals Follow-up Study.

Authors:  Mehrdad Alemozaffar; Martin Sanda; Derek Yecies; Lorelei A Mucci; Meir J Stampfer; Stacey A Kenfield
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2014-02-11       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 6.  The development of robotic surgery in the Middle East.

Authors:  Danny M Rabah; Osman Zin Al-Abdin
Journal:  Arab J Urol       Date:  2012-01-26

7.  Efficacy of using three-tesla magnetic resonance imaging diagnosis of capsule invasion for decision-making about neurovascular bundle preservation in robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Kazushi Tanaka; Katsumi Shigemura; Mototsugu Muramaki; Satoru Takahashi; Hideaki Miyake; Masato Fujisawa
Journal:  Korean J Urol       Date:  2013-07-15
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.