Literature DB >> 22498227

Contemporary open and robotic radical prostatectomy practice patterns among urologists in the United States.

William T Lowrance1, James A Eastham, Caroline Savage, A C Maschino, Vincent P Laudone, Christopher B Dechet, Robert A Stephenson, Peter T Scardino, Jaspreet S Sandhu.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We describe current trends in robotic and open radical prostatectomy in the United States after examining case logs for American Board of Urology certification.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: American urologists submit case logs for initial board certification and recertification. We analyzed logs from 2004 to 2010 for trends and used logistic regression to assess the impact of urologist age on robotic radical prostatectomy use.
RESULTS: A total of 4,709 urologists submitted case logs for certification between 2004 and 2010. Of these logs 3,374 included 1 or more radical prostatectomy cases. Of the urologists 2,413 (72%) reported performing open radical prostatectomy only while 961 (28%) reported 1 or more robotic radical prostatectomies and 308 (9%) reported robotic radical prostatectomy only. During this 7-year period we observed a large increase in the number of urologists who performed robotic radical prostatectomy and a smaller corresponding decrease in those who performed open radical prostatectomy. Only 8% of patients were treated with robotic radical prostatectomy by urologists who were certified in 2004 while 67% underwent that procedure in 2010. Median age of urologists who exclusively performed open radical prostatectomy was 43 years (IQR 38-51) vs 41 (IQR 35-46) for those who performed only robotic radical prostatectomy.
CONCLUSIONS: While the rate was not as high as the greater than 85% industry estimate, 67% of radical prostatectomies were done robotically among urologists who underwent board certification or recertification in 2010. Total radical prostatectomy volume almost doubled during the study period. These data provide nonindustry based estimates of current radical prostatectomy practice patterns and further our understanding of the evolving surgical treatment of prostate cancer.
Copyright © 2012 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22498227      PMCID: PMC3407038          DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.01.061

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  10 in total

1.  Robotically-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  J Binder; W Kramer
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 5.588

2.  Laparoscopic and robot assisted radical prostatectomy: establishment of a structured program and preliminary analysis of outcomes.

Authors:  Mani Menon; Alok Shrivastava; Ashutosh Tewari; Richard Sarle; Ashok Hemal; James O Peabody; Guy Vallancien
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 7.450

3.  New technology and health care costs--the case of robot-assisted surgery.

Authors:  Gabriel I Barbash; Sherry A Glied
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2010-08-19       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Racial treatment trends in localized/regional prostate carcinoma: 1992-1999.

Authors:  Willie Underwood; James Jackson; John T Wei; Rodney Dunn; Edmond Baker; Sonya Demonner; David P Wood
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2005-02-01       Impact factor: 6.860

5.  The association between diffusion of the surgical robot and radical prostatectomy rates.

Authors:  Danil V Makarov; James B Yu; Rani A Desai; David F Penson; Cary P Gross
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 2.983

6.  Cancer statistics, 2010.

Authors:  Ahmedin Jemal; Rebecca Siegel; Jiaquan Xu; Elizabeth Ward
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2010-07-07       Impact factor: 508.702

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.  Trends in radical prostatectomy: centralization, robotics, and access to urologic cancer care.

Authors:  Karyn B Stitzenberg; Yu-Ning Wong; Matthew E Nielsen; Brian L Egleston; Robert G Uzzo
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2011-06-29       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  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

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

  10 in total
  67 in total

1.  Achieving proficiency with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: Laparoscopic-trained versus robotics-trained surgeons.

Authors:  Brian Kim; Allen Chang; Jennifer Kaswick; Armen Derboghossians; Howard Jung; Jeff Slezak; Melanie Wuerstle; Stephen G Williams; Gary W Chien
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2013 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.862

Review 2.  Avoiding and managing vascular injury during robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  René Sotelo; Luciano A Nunez Bragayrac; Victor Machuca; Roberto Garza Cortes; Raed A Azhar
Journal:  Ther Adv Urol       Date:  2015-02

Review 3.  Alternative Reservoir and Balloon Placement in Complex Patients Undergoing Urologic Prostheses.

Authors:  Travis J Pagliara; Daniel W Smith; Boyd R Viers; Allen F Morey
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2018-04-13       Impact factor: 3.092

4.  Comparison between complication rates of laser prostatectomy electrocautery transurethral resection of the prostate: A population-based study.

Authors:  Alexandre Larouche; Andreas Becker; Jonas Schiffmann; Florian Roghmann; Giorgio Gandaglia; Nawar Hanna; Zhe Tian; Paul Perrotte; Thorsten Schlomm; Markus Graefen; Sascha Ahyai; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Maxine Sun
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 1.862

5.  Visual-perceptual mismatch in robotic surgery.

Authors:  Ahmad Abiri; Anna Tao; Meg LaRocca; Xingmin Guan; Syed J Askari; James W Bisley; Erik P Dutson; Warren S Grundfest
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-12-06       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Diffusion of surgical innovations, patient safety, and minimally invasive radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  J Kellogg Parsons; Karen Messer; Kerrin Palazzi; Sean P Stroup; David Chang
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 14.766

7.  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

8.  Trends in partial and radical nephrectomy: an analysis of case logs from certifying urologists.

Authors:  Stephen A Poon; Jonathan L Silberstein; Ling Y Chen; Behfar Ehdaie; Philip H Kim; Paul Russo
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2013-02-27       Impact factor: 7.450

9.  Environmental impact of minimally invasive surgery in the United States: an estimate of the carbon dioxide footprint.

Authors:  Nicholas E Power; Jonathan L Silberstein; Tarek P Ghoneim; Bertrand Guillonneau; Karim A Touijer
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2012-10-16       Impact factor: 2.942

Review 10.  The potential role of stem cells in the treatment of urinary incontinence.

Authors:  Christine Tran; Margot S Damaser
Journal:  Ther Adv Urol       Date:  2015-02
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.