Literature DB >> 25535000

Robotic surgery in urological oncology: patient care or market share?

Deborah R Kaye1, Jeffrey K Mullins1, H Ballentine Carter2, Trinity J Bivalacqua3.   

Abstract

Surgical robotic use has grown exponentially in spite of limited or uncertain benefits and large costs. In certain situations, adoption of robotic technology provides value to patients and society. In other cases, however, the robot provides little or no increase in surgical quality, with increased expense, and, therefore, does not add value to health care. The surgical robot is expensive to purchase, maintain and operate, and can contribute to increased consumerism in relation to surgical procedures, and increased reliance on the technology, thus driving future increases in health-care expenditure. Given the current need for budget constraints, the cost-effectiveness of specific procedures must be evaluated. The surgical robot should be used when cost-effective, but traditional open and laparoscopic techniques also need to be continually fostered.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25535000     DOI: 10.1038/nrurol.2014.339

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nat Rev Urol        ISSN: 1759-4812            Impact factor:   14.432


  71 in total

1.  Exploring the learning curve, pathological outcomes and perioperative morbidity of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy performed for renal mass.

Authors:  Richard E Link; Sam B Bhayani; Mohammed E Allaf; Ioannis Varkarakis; Takeshi Inagaki; Craig Rogers; Li-Ming Su; Thomas W Jarrett; Louis R Kavoussi
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 7.450

2.  Comparison of oncological outcomes between retropubic radical prostatectomy and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: an analysis stratified by surgical experience.

Authors:  Jinsung Park; Dae-Seon Yoo; Cheryn Song; Sahyun Park; Sejun Park; Seong Cheol Kim; Yongmee Cho; Hanjong Ahn
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2013-09-24       Impact factor: 4.226

3.  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

4.  Cost implications of the rapid adoption of newer technologies for treating prostate cancer.

Authors:  Paul L Nguyen; Xiangmei Gu; Stuart R Lipsitz; Toni K Choueiri; Wesley W Choi; Yin Lei; Karen E Hoffman; Jim C Hu
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2011-03-14       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  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

6.  Oncologic outcomes at 10 years following robotic radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Mireya Diaz; James O Peabody; Victor Kapoor; Jesse Sammon; Craig G Rogers; Hans Stricker; Zhaoli Lane; Nilesh Gupta; Mahendra Bhandari; Mani Menon
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2014-07-02       Impact factor: 20.096

7.  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

8.  Oncologic results, functional outcomes, and complication rates of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: multicenter experience in Turkey including 1,499 patients.

Authors:  A I Tasci; I Tufek; E Gumus; A E Canda; V Tugcu; F Atug; U Boylu; Z Akbulut; S Sahin; A Simsek; A R Kural
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-09-13       Impact factor: 4.226

9.  Partial nephrectomy versus radical nephrectomy in patients with small renal tumors--is there a difference in mortality and cardiovascular outcomes?

Authors:  William C Huang; Elena B Elkin; Andrew S Levey; Thomas L Jang; Paul Russo
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2008-11-13       Impact factor: 7.450

10.  Comparative analysis of laparoscopic versus open partial nephrectomy for renal tumors in 200 patients.

Authors:  Inderbir S Gill; Surena F Matin; Mihir M Desai; Jihad H Kaouk; Andrew Steinberg; Ed Mascha; Julie Thornton; Mahmoud H Sherief; Brenda Strzempkowski; Andrew C Novick
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 7.450

View more
  9 in total

1.  Error reporting from the da Vinci surgical system in robotic surgery: A Canadian multispecialty experience at a single academic centre.

Authors:  Emad Rajih; Côme Tholomier; Beatrice Cormier; Vanessa Samouëlian; Thomas Warkus; Moishe Liberman; Hugues Widmer; Jean-Baptiste Lattouf; Abdullah M Alenizi; Malek Meskawi; Roger Valdivieso; Pierre-Alain Hueber; Pierre I Karakewicz; Assaad El-Hakim; Kevin C Zorn
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2017-05-09       Impact factor: 1.862

2.  Efficacy and cost of robotic hepatectomy: is the robot cost-prohibitive?

Authors:  Jonathan G Sham; Morgan K Richards; Y David Seo; Venu G Pillarisetty; Raymond S Yeung; James O Park
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2016-05-06

3.  Adapting the robotic platform to small operating theaters: our experience with the side-docking technique for robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy.

Authors:  Simone Albisinni; Fouad Aoun; Dam Le Dinh; Ksenja Limani; Eric Hawaux; Alexandre Peltier; Roland van Velthoven
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-02-05       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Transoral robotic surgery for the base of tongue squamous cell carcinoma: a preliminary comparison between da Vinci Xi and Si.

Authors:  Marco Alessandrini; Isabella Pavone; Alessandro Micarelli; Claudio Caporale
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2017-09-13

Review 5.  Considering the role of radical prostatectomy in 21st century prostate cancer care.

Authors:  Anthony J Costello
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2020-02-21       Impact factor: 14.432

6.  Financial Impact of the Robotic Approach in Liver Surgery: A Comparative Study of Clinical Outcomes and Costs Between the Robotic and Open Technique in a Single Institution.

Authors:  Despoina Daskalaki; Raquel Gonzalez-Heredia; Marc Brown; Francesco M Bianco; Ivo Tzvetanov; Myriam Davis; Jihun Kim; Enrico Benedetti; Pier C Giulianotti
Journal:  J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A       Date:  2017-02-10       Impact factor: 1.878

7.  Market potentials of robotic systems in medical science: analysis of the Avatera robotic system.

Authors:  Evangelos Liatsikos; Arman Tsaturyan; Iason Kyriazis; Panagiotis Kallidonis; Dimitris Manolopoulos; Anastasios Magoutas
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2021-08-23       Impact factor: 4.226

8.  Effect of patient choice and hospital competition on service configuration and technology adoption within cancer surgery: a national, population-based study.

Authors:  Ajay Aggarwal; Daniel Lewis; Malcolm Mason; Arnie Purushotham; Richard Sullivan; Jan van der Meulen
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2017-10-03       Impact factor: 41.316

9.  Robot-assisted simple prostatectomy versus open simple prostatectomy: a single-center comparison.

Authors:  R Dotzauer; A La Torre; A Thomas; M P Brandt; K Böhm; R Mager; H Borgmann; W Jäger; M Kurosch; T Höfner; C Ruckes; A Haferkamp; I Tsaur
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2020-03-28       Impact factor: 4.226

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.