Literature DB >> 21324583

Safety profile of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a standardized report of complications in 3317 patients.

Piyush K Agarwal1, Jesse Sammon, Akshay Bhandari, Ali Dabaja, Mireya Diaz, Stacey Dusik-Fenton, Ramgopal Satyanarayana, Andrea Simone, Quoc-Dien Trinh, Brad Baize, Mani Menon.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Previous studies attempting to assess complications after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) are limited by their small numbers, short follow-up, or lack of risk factor analysis.
OBJECTIVE: To document complications after RARP by strict application of standardized reporting criteria. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Between January 2005 and December 2009, 3317 consecutive patients underwent RARP at a tertiary referral center. Median follow-up was 24.2 mo (interquartile range: 12.4-36.9). INTERVENTION: Transperitoneal RARP was performed by one of five surgeons-two experienced, three beginners. MEASUREMENTS: Complications were captured by exhaustive review of multiple datasets, including our prospective prostate cancer database, claims data, and electronic medical and institutional morbidity and mortality records, and reported according to the Martin-Donat criteria. Complications were stratified by type (medical/surgical), Clavien classification, and timing of onset. Multivariable analysis of factors predictive of complications was performed. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The median hospitalization time was 1 d. There were 368 complications in 326 patients (9.8%), including a transfusion rate of 2.2%. We detected 79 medical complications in 78 patients (2.4%) and 289 surgical complications in 264 patients (8.0%). There were 242 minor (Clavien 1-2) and 126 major (Clavien 3-5) complications. Two hundred ninety-nine (81.3%) complications occurred within 30 d, 17 (4.6%) within 31-90 d, and 52 (14.1%) after 90 d from surgery. On multivariable analysis, preoperative prostate-specific antigen values and cardiac comorbidity were predictive for medical complications, whereas age, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and biopsy Gleason score were predictive of surgical complications. Limitations of this study include representing results from a single high-volume referral center and not including the learning curve of the two most experienced surgeons.
CONCLUSIONS: RARP is a safe operation, with an overall complication rate of 9.8%. Most complications occurred within 30 d of surgery.
Copyright © 2011. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21324583     DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.01.045

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Urol        ISSN: 0302-2838            Impact factor:   20.096


  27 in total

1.  [Radical prostatectomy - pro laparoscopic].

Authors:  H M Do; S Holze; H Qazi; A Dietel; T Häfner; E Liatsikos; J-U Stolzenburg
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 2.  Controversies associated with the evaluation of elderly men with localized prostate cancer when considering radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Koji Mitsuzuka; Yoichi Arai
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-08-26       Impact factor: 3.402

3.  Learning curve assessment of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared with open-surgery controls from the premier perspective database.

Authors:  John W Davis; Usha S Kreaden; Jessica Gabbert; Raju Thomas
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2014-02-06       Impact factor: 2.942

4.  Do we need the nerve sparing radical prostatectomy techniques (intrafascial vs. interfascial) in men with erectile dysfunction? Results of a single-centre study.

Authors:  Wael Y Khoder; Raphaela Waidelich; Michael Seitz; Armin J Becker; Alexander Buchner; Stefan Trittschler; Christian G Stief
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-04-22       Impact factor: 4.226

5.  Resident involvement and experience do not affect perioperative complications following robotic prostatectomy.

Authors:  Daniel T McMillan; Anthony J Viera; Jonathan Matthews; Mathew C Raynor; Michael E Woods; Raj S Pruthi; Eric M Wallen; Matthew E Nielsen; Angela B Smith
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-07-02       Impact factor: 4.226

6.  Clinical factors affecting perioperative outcomes in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Tomohiko Murakami; Satoshi Otsubo; Ryo Namitome; Masaki Shiota; Junichi Inokuchi; Ario Takeuchi; Eiji Kashiwagi; Katsunori Tatsugami; Masatoshi Eto
Journal:  Mol Clin Oncol       Date:  2018-09-13

7.  National trends and differences in morbidity among surgical approaches for radical prostatectomy in Germany.

Authors:  Jens Uwe Stolzenburg; Iason Kyriazis; Claus Fahlenbrach; Christian Gilfrich; Christian Günster; Elke Jeschke; Gralf Popken; Lothar Weißbach; Christoph von Zastrow; Hanna Leicht
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2016-03-24       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 8.  Comparison of perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes between standard laparoscopic and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systemic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Xing Huang; Lei Wang; Xinmin Zheng; Xinghuan Wang
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-07-21       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 9.  Diffusion of robotics into clinical practice in the United States: process, patient safety, learning curves, and the public health.

Authors:  Hossein S Mirheydar; J Kellogg Parsons
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2012-12-29       Impact factor: 4.226

10.  Preventing perioperative complications of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Michael A Liss; Douglas Skarecky; Blanca Morales; Kathryn Osann; Louis Eichel; Thomas E Ahlering
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 2.649

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.