British Journal of Urology · 2005 · 164 citations · 13 references
MedicineSurgeryUrologyOncologic SurgeryProstate DiseaseSurgical OncologyLaparoscopic SurgeryMinimally Invasive Urologic SurgeryProstate CancerProstate SurgeryRadical ProstatectomyRobot-assisted SurgeryFunctional Outcome MeasurementFunctional Outcomes After SurgeryGleason ScoringLaparoscopic Radical ProstatectomyMinimally Invasive Prostate SurgeryRobot-assisted Radical ProstatectomyRobotic ProstatectomyRobotic-assisted Radical Prostatectomy
OBJECTIVE: To compare our experience of pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RAP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The two techniques were compared retrospectively in 100 patients with localized prostate cancer who had LRP or RAP (50 each). Both groups were similar in age, serum prostate-specific antigen level, Gleason score and clinical stage. Their charts were reviewed, collating intraoperative data and early functional outcome. RESULTS: The mean surgical time for LRP and RAP was 235 and 202 min (P > 0.05) and mean (95% confidence interval) blood loss 299 (40) and 206 (63) mL (P = 0.014), with no transfusions in either group. The positive margin rate did not differ significantly (14% LRP and 12% RAP) and there was no biochemical recurrence in either group. Early functional outcomes were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Both LRP and RAP are technically demanding, but feasible, with the patient clearly benefiting. There were no major surgical differences between the techniques, but RAP is more costly.
13
Patient-reported urinary continence and sexual function after anatomic radical prostatectomy
Patrick C. Walsh, Penny Marschke, Deborah D. Ricker et al. · Urology · 2000 · 685 citations
Risk Factors for Urinary Incontinence after Radical Prostatectomy
James A. Eastham, Michael W. Kattan, Eamonn Rogers et al. · The Journal of Urology · 1996 · 534 citations