Literature DB >> 27628470

Predictors of positive surgical margins at open and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a single surgeon series.

Mahesha Weerakoon1, Shomik Sengupta2,3, Kapil Sethi1, Joseph Ischia1, David R Webb1.   

Abstract

Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALRP), increasingly used to treat localized prostate cancer, has advantages over open radical prostatectomy (ORP) in terms of reduced bleeding and quicker convalescence. However, debate continues over whether RALRP provides superior or at least equivalent surgical outcomes. This study compares positive surgical margins (+SM), as a surrogate for long-term cancer control, at RALRP and ORP performed by a single experienced surgeon during the process of taking up RALRP. 400 consecutive patients undergoing surgery for prostate cancer under a single surgeon (DW) between November 1999 and July 2009 were studied. Prior to July 2005, all patients underwent ORP; after this date, most patients were treated by RALRP. Data were collected by retrospective chart review and analysed independently of the treating surgeon. +SM were defined as the presence of cancer at an inked surface. Overall, 23 (11.5%) of 200 patients undergoing RALRP had +SM, compared to 40 (20.0%) of 200 patients undergoing ORP (P < 0.05). On univariate logistic regression analysis, in addition to surgical approach (odds ratio [OR] = 1.92), patient age (OR = 1.05), pathologic stage (OR = 3.93) and specimen Gleason (GS) score (OR = 1.86) were significant predictors of +SM. On multivariate analysis, surgical approach, p-stage and specimen GS remained significant predictors of +SM. RALRP is associated with lower rates of +SM compared to ORP, even after adjusting for other known risk factors. Of note, the RALRP in this study were part of the surgeon's learning curve.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Multivariate analysis; Positive surgical margins; Prostate cancer; Prostatectomy, open; Prostatectomy, robotic; Risk factors

Year:  2011        PMID: 27628470     DOI: 10.1007/s11701-011-0313-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Robot Surg        ISSN: 1863-2483


  18 in total

1.  Robotic radical prostatectomy in Australia: initial experience.

Authors:  P J O'Malley; S Van Appledorn; D M Bouchier-Hayes; H Crowe; A J Costello
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2006-03-22       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 2.  Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies.

Authors:  Vincenzo Ficarra; Giacomo Novara; Walter Artibani; Andrea Cestari; Antonio Galfano; Markus Graefen; Giorgio Guazzoni; Bertrand Guillonneau; Mani Menon; Francesco Montorsi; Vipul Patel; Jens Rassweiler; Hendrik Van Poppel
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2009-01-25       Impact factor: 20.096

3.  Impact of surgical technique (open vs laparoscopic vs robotic-assisted) on pathological and biochemical outcomes following radical prostatectomy: an analysis using propensity score matching.

Authors:  Ahmed Magheli; Mark L Gonzalgo; Li-Ming Su; Thomas J Guzzo; George Netto; Elizabeth B Humphreys; Misop Han; Alan W Partin; Christian P Pavlovich
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2010-11-02       Impact factor: 5.588

4.  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

5.  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

6.  A prospective comparison of radical retropubic and robot-assisted prostatectomy: experience in one institution.

Authors:  A Tewari; A Srivasatava; M Menon
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 5.588

7.  The impact of positive surgical margins on mortality following radical prostatectomy during the prostate specific antigen era.

Authors:  Stephen A Boorjian; R Jeffrey Karnes; Paul L Crispen; Rachel E Carlson; Laureano J Rangel; Eric J Bergstralh; Michael L Blute
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2010-01-21       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  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

9.  Should experienced open prostatic surgeons convert to robotic surgery? The real learning curve for one surgeon over 3 years.

Authors:  Nicolas Doumerc; Carlo Yuen; Richard Savdie; M Bayzidur Rahman; Kris K Rasiah; Ruth Pe Benito; Warick Delprado; Jayne Matthews; Anne-Maree Haynes; Phillip D Stricker
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2010-01-08       Impact factor: 5.588

10.  Outcomes of retropubic, laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted prostatectomy.

Authors:  J Kellogg Parsons; J Lisette Bennett
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2008-02-11       Impact factor: 2.649

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.