403Urinary continence after retropubic perineal, and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Prospective comparative study

Keller, H.; Schmeller, N.; Janetschek, G.

doi:10.1016/s1569-9056(05)80409-9

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…All of the comparative studies between LRP and RRP demonstrated a lower blood loss (LRP: 189-1100 mL vs. RRP: 550-1550 mL) and transfusion rate with laparoscopy except one (19), where the higher transfusion rate observed in the LRP series is probably correlated to the different level of surgeon expertise (RRP > 800, LRP > 60 cases). The same applies to complication and reoperation rates (7,(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26).…”

Section: Intra-and Perioperative Complicationsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a review

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction:We offer an overview of the intra-, peri-and postoperative outcomes of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) with the endpoint to evaluate potential advantages of this approach. Materials and Methods:We conducted an extensive Medline literature search (search terms "laparoscopic radical prostatectomy" and "radical prostatectomy") from 1990 until 2007. Only full-length English language articles identified during this search were considered for this analysis. A preference was given to the articles with large series with more than 100 patients. All pertinent articles concerning localized prostate cancer were reviewed. Conclusion: Pure LRP has shown to be feasible and reproducible but it is difficult to learn. Potential advantages over open surgery have to be confirmed by longer-term follow-up and adequately designed clinical studies.

show abstract