Literature DB >> 23172996

Radical retropubic prostatectomy: comparison of the open and robotic approaches for treatment of prostate cancer.

Jeffrey J Tosoian1, Stacy Loeb.   

Abstract

Radical prostatectomy represents the standard of care for surgical treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. First described in 1904, the operation became widely performed only after advances in diagnostic and surgical techniques occurred later in the century. Over time, open retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) became the most common operation for prostate cancer, and excellent long-term survival outcomes have been reported. More recently, minimally invasive techniques such as the robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALRP) were introduced. Despite a lack of prospectively collected, long-term data supporting its use, RALRP has overtaken RRP as the most frequently performed prostate cancer operation in the United States. This article uses currently available data to compare oncologic, functional, and quality-of-life outcomes associated with both the open and robotic approaches to radical prostatectomy.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Perioperative outcomes; Prostate cancer; Radical retropubic prostatectomy; Robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

Year:  2012        PMID: 23172996      PMCID: PMC3502048     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Rev Urol        ISSN: 1523-6161


  62 in total

1.  A prospective trial comparing consecutive series of open retropubic and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in a centre with a limited caseload.

Authors:  Giovanni B Di Pierro; Philipp Baumeister; Patrick Stucki; Josef Beatrice; Hansjörg Danuser; Agostino Mattei
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2010-10-21       Impact factor: 20.096

2.  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

Review 3.  Robotic and laparoscopic surgery: cost and training.

Authors:  Hiten R H Patel; Ana Linares; Jean V Joseph
Journal:  Surg Oncol       Date:  2009-06-27       Impact factor: 3.279

4.  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

5.  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

6.  Administrative data sets are inaccurate for assessing functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Matthew K Tollefson; Matthew T Gettman; R Jeffrey Karnes; Igor Frank
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2011-03-21       Impact factor: 7.450

7.  Radical retropubic prostatectomy and robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: likelihood of positive surgical margin(s).

Authors:  Stephen B Williams; Ming-Hui Chen; Anthony V D'Amico; Aaron C Weinberg; Ravi Kacker; Michelle S Hirsch; Jerome P Richie; Jim C Hu
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2010-03-29       Impact factor: 2.649

8.  Nationwide population-based study on 30-day mortality after radical prostatectomy in Sweden.

Authors:  Sigrid Carlsson; Jan Adolfsson; Ola Bratt; Jan-Erik Johansson; Christer Ahlstrand; Erik Holmberg; Pär Stattin; Jonas Hugosson
Journal:  Scand J Urol Nephrol       Date:  2009

9.  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.  Utilization and outcomes of minimally invasive radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Jim C Hu; Qin Wang; Chris L Pashos; Stuart R Lipsitz; Nancy L Keating
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2008-05-10       Impact factor: 44.544

View more
  5 in total

1.  Surgical site infections after radical prostatectomy: A comparative study between robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and retropubic radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Daniar K Osmonov; Amr A Faddan; Alexey V Aksenov; Carsten M Naumann; Leonid M Rapoport; Evgeny A Bezrukov; Dmitry G Tsarichenko; Klaus P Jünemann
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2018-07

2.  Postoperative wound dealing and superficial surgical site infection in open radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Fukashi Yamamichi; Katsumi Shigemura; Mauso Yamashita; Kazushi Tanaka; Soishi Arakawa; Masato Fujisawa
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2014-09-04       Impact factor: 3.315

Review 3.  Imaging modalities aiding nerve-sparing during radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Adil Jaulim; Abdüllatif Aydın; Farheen Ebrahim; Kamran Ahmed; Oussama Elhage; Prokar Dasgupta
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2019-09-01

Review 4.  The evolution of image guidance in robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP): a glimpse into the future.

Authors:  Joshua Makary; Danielle C van Diepen; Ranjan Arianayagam; George McClintock; Jeremy Fallot; Scott Leslie; Ruban Thanigasalam
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2021-09-04

Review 5.  Robotic assisted radical cystectomy versus open radical cystectomy: a review of what we do and don't know.

Authors:  Zeynep G Gul; Andrew B Katims; Jared S Winoker; Peter Wiklund; Nikhil Waingankar; Reza Mehrazin
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2021-05
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.