Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Comparative assessment of a single surgeon's series of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: conventional versus robot-assisted.
J Endourol. 2011 Apr; 25(4):597-602.JE

Abstract

PURPOSE

To directly compare the outcome of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) with robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) performed by a single laparoscopic surgeon with intermediate experience-one who is between a novice and an expert.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Consecutive 106 patients with prostate cancer who were treated with radical prostatectomy (62 with LRP and 44 with RALP) were included. The preoperative characteristics, the perioperative surgical outcomes, and the functional outcomes were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The mean operative time was longer in the RALP group (371 min vs 308 min, P = 0.00), conceivably because of more nerve-sparing procedures (84% vs 57%). The other perioperative parameters, including the surgical margin, were comparable, except for two major complications (rectourethral fistula and ureteral injury) in the LRP group. The RALP group recovered continence faster than those in the LRP, but the eventual continence rate at 12 months was similar (95% for LRP vs 94.4% for RALP, P = 1.00). The potency rate ≥ 6 months postsurgery was 47.6% in the LRP group and 54.5% in the RALP group (P = 0.65).

CONCLUSIONS

RALP was beneficial for the earlier recovery of continence, although LRP and RALP had comparable safety and efficacy as minimally invasive surgery for prostate cancer when performed by a laparoscopic surgeon with intermediate experience. Long-term follow-up data are needed for further evaluation of oncologic and functional outcomes for both techniques.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Urology, Korea Cancer Center Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.No affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

21438677

Citation

Park, Jong Wook, et al. "Comparative Assessment of a Single Surgeon's Series of Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: Conventional Versus Robot-assisted." Journal of Endourology, vol. 25, no. 4, 2011, pp. 597-602.
Park JW, Won Lee H, Kim W, et al. Comparative assessment of a single surgeon's series of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: conventional versus robot-assisted. J Endourol. 2011;25(4):597-602.
Park, J. W., Won Lee, H., Kim, W., Jeong, B. C., Jeon, S. S., Lee, H. M., Choi, H. Y., & Seo, S. I. (2011). Comparative assessment of a single surgeon's series of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: conventional versus robot-assisted. Journal of Endourology, 25(4), 597-602. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2010.0229
Park JW, et al. Comparative Assessment of a Single Surgeon's Series of Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: Conventional Versus Robot-assisted. J Endourol. 2011;25(4):597-602. PubMed PMID: 21438677.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Comparative assessment of a single surgeon's series of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: conventional versus robot-assisted. AU - Park,Jong Wook, AU - Won Lee,Hye, AU - Kim,Wansuk, AU - Jeong,Byong Chang, AU - Jeon,Seong Soo, AU - Lee,Hyun Moo, AU - Choi,Han Yong, AU - Seo,Seong Il, Y1 - 2011/03/25/ PY - 2011/3/29/entrez PY - 2011/3/29/pubmed PY - 2011/7/22/medline SP - 597 EP - 602 JF - Journal of endourology JO - J Endourol VL - 25 IS - 4 N2 - PURPOSE: To directly compare the outcome of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) with robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) performed by a single laparoscopic surgeon with intermediate experience-one who is between a novice and an expert. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Consecutive 106 patients with prostate cancer who were treated with radical prostatectomy (62 with LRP and 44 with RALP) were included. The preoperative characteristics, the perioperative surgical outcomes, and the functional outcomes were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The mean operative time was longer in the RALP group (371 min vs 308 min, P = 0.00), conceivably because of more nerve-sparing procedures (84% vs 57%). The other perioperative parameters, including the surgical margin, were comparable, except for two major complications (rectourethral fistula and ureteral injury) in the LRP group. The RALP group recovered continence faster than those in the LRP, but the eventual continence rate at 12 months was similar (95% for LRP vs 94.4% for RALP, P = 1.00). The potency rate ≥ 6 months postsurgery was 47.6% in the LRP group and 54.5% in the RALP group (P = 0.65). CONCLUSIONS: RALP was beneficial for the earlier recovery of continence, although LRP and RALP had comparable safety and efficacy as minimally invasive surgery for prostate cancer when performed by a laparoscopic surgeon with intermediate experience. Long-term follow-up data are needed for further evaluation of oncologic and functional outcomes for both techniques. SN - 1557-900X UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/21438677/Comparative_assessment_of_a_single_surgeon's_series_of_laparoscopic_radical_prostatectomy:_conventional_versus_robot_assisted_ L2 - https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/end.2010.0229?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub=pubmed DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -