2003
DOI: 10.1016/s1569-9056(03)80809-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Laparoscopic salvage prostatectomy compared with normal laparoscopic prostatectomy

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2008
2008

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(2 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The mean tumor diameter on the specimen was 3.13 ± 1.03 cm (range, 1-6). The thickness of the healthy margin of resection in this group was 7.9 ± 4.9 mm (range, [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22]. Six renal lesions were benign, whereas 16 were malignant.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The mean tumor diameter on the specimen was 3.13 ± 1.03 cm (range, 1-6). The thickness of the healthy margin of resection in this group was 7.9 ± 4.9 mm (range, [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22]. Six renal lesions were benign, whereas 16 were malignant.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…LPN is already the preferred option in centers with advanced laparoscopic expertise. Several large series of LPN have been published and more than 1100 cases have been reported in the literature [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] and [12]. However, the major urological associations' guidelines do not yet consider LPN as the primary choice for treatment of small renal tumors [1] because of the relatively short follow-up of the available series, which does not allow one to draw conclusions on the long-term oncological outcomes, and because of the longer warm ischemia time compared with OPN and the reported high rate of complications [5], [6], [13], [14], [15] and [16].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%