Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Simple Anatomic Prostatectomy

Patel, Manish; Hemal, Ashok K.

doi:10.1016/j.ucl.2014.07.003

Cited by 18 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Robotic surgery has been increasingly utilized in the field of urology for both benign and malignant disease [11, 21]. Disparities have been identified in urologic oncology and studied in regard to their impact on patient outcomes [12, 17].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Compared to laparoscopic surgery, the postoperative benefits and oncologic outcomes of robotic surgery in colorectal cancer have been less established, in part because of less experience and adoption of robotic surgery in this disease process [8–10]. In contrast, robotic surgery has been better established in its application to malignancies and other benign disease processes in urology and gynecology [11–13]. …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

National disparities in minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Social and racial disparities have been identified as factors contributing to differences in access to care and oncologic outcomes in patients with colorectal cancer. The aim of this study was to investigate national disparities in minimally invasive surgery (MIS), both laparoscopic and robotic, across different racial, socioeconomic and geographic populations of patients with rectal cancer. Methods We utilized the American College of Surgeons National Cancer Database to identify patients with rectal cancer from 2004 to 2011 who had undergone definitive surgical procedures through either an open, laparoscopic or robotic approach. Inclusion criteria included only one malignancy and no adjuvant therapy. Multivariate analysis was performed to investigate differences in age, gender, race, income, education, insurance coverage, geographic setting and hospital type in relation to the surgical approach. Results A total of 8633 patients were identified. The initial surgical approach included 46.5 % open (4016), 50.9 % laparoscopic (4393) and 2.6 % robotic (224). In evaluating type of insurance coverage, patients with private insurance were most likely to undergo laparoscopic surgery [OR (odds ratio) 1.637, 95 % CI 1.178–2.275], although there was a less statistically significant association with robotic surgery (OR 2.167, 95 % CI 0.663–7.087). Patients who had incomes greater than $46,000 and received treatment at an academic center were more likely to undergo MIS (either laparoscopic or robotic). Race, education and geographic setting were not statistically significant characteristics for surgical approach in patients with rectal cancer. Conclusions Minimally invasive approaches for rectal cancer comprise approximately 53 % of surgical procedures in patients not treated with adjuvant therapy. Robotics is associated with patients who have higher incomes and private insurance and undergo surgery in academic centers.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

National disparities in minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most studies report the results of the small case series of LSP with different surgical approaches such as extraperitoneal, transperitoneal, transcapsular, or finger-assisted approaches [19-22, 31, 35-37]. In the literature, the results of extraperitoneal or transperitoneal techniques are reported to be similar without any superiority to the other [16][17][18]. There are four studies comparing the results of LSP with open prostatectomy.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are four studies comparing the results of LSP with open prostatectomy. Three studies with small number of patients reported less blood loss [23,32,33], less hospitalization time [17,18,20], and less catheterization time [32][33][34]. One study with bigger number of patients, by McCullough et al, compared the results of 96 LSP patients with 184 open prostatectomy patients and found no statistically significant difference in blood loss (350 vs. 400 ml) and in prostate volume (111.3 vs. 117.2 g) between two techniques; however, statistically significant differences were found in terms of hospitalization time (6.3 vs. 7.7 days) (p < 0.001) and catheterization time (5.2 vs. 6.4 days) (p < 0.001) [34].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Laparoscopic Simple Prostatectomy

Çömez¹

2019

Prostatectomy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is the most common benign tumor and cause of urinary retention in middle-aged male patients. Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is the gold standard surgical treatment for benign prostatic obstruction. Although widely performed, TURP is associated with significant morbidity. Open prostatectomy is performed in larger glands, which are more than 80 grams, with higher morbidity. Advances in technology, such as holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) and KTP laser vaporization, are other options that are widely used despite their limitations. Laparoscopic simple prostatectomy (LSP) is a minimally invasive treatment option with equivalent functional outcomes and is useful in larger prostatic adenomas, with low morbidity in experienced hands.

show abstract

Surgical Treatment: Robotic Simple Prostatectomy

Carvalho

Coelho

2017

The Big Prostate

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Simple Anatomic Prostatectomy

Cited by 18 publications

References 10 publications

National disparities in minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer

National disparities in minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer

Laparoscopic Simple Prostatectomy

Surgical Treatment: Robotic Simple Prostatectomy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About