Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Radical Prostatectomy–a Contemporary Review

被引:0
|
作者
Kulthe Ramesh Seetharam Bhat
S. K. Raghunath
N. Srivatsa
C. Tejus
K. Vishruth
R. Anil Kumar
机构
[1] Trustwell Hospital,
[2] HCG Hospital,undefined
来源
关键词
Radical prostatectomy; Potency; Continence; RALP; Laparoscopic prostatectomy.;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Prostatectomy has been widely accepted as a treatment option for prostate cancer and can be performed via an open, laparoscopic, and robotic approach. The outcomes following prostatectomy are primarily sub-grouped into oncological and functional outcomes. Oncological outcomes have been comparable in the above three surgical modalities. However, the robotic platform seems to have a better functional outcome compared to open prostatectomy. The data on the outcome of the laparoscopic approach is scarce and is not widely performed due to technical difficulty. With experience continence outcomes have reached a plateau in many robotic series, however, the potency outcome is the real Achilles tendon of this procedure. Many factors influence potency outcomes but the amount and quality of nerve-sparing is one factor that is under a surgeon’s control and it improves with experience.
引用
收藏
页码:580 / 588
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Matched comparison of outcomes following open and minimally invasive radical prostatectomy for high-risk patients
    Busch, Jonas
    Magheli, Ahmed
    Leva, Natalia
    Hinz, Stefan
    Ferrari, Michelle
    Friedersdorff, Frank
    Fuller, Tom Florian
    Miller, Kurt
    Gonzalgo, Mark L.
    WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2014, 32 (06) : 1411 - 1416
  • [42] Minimally invasive laser techniques for prostatectomy: a systematic review
    Wheelahan, J
    Scott, NA
    Cartmill, R
    Marshall, V
    Morton, RP
    Nacey, J
    Maddern, GJ
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2000, 86 (07) : 805 - 815
  • [43] The Effect of Obesity on Perioperative Outcomes for Open and Minimally Invasive Prostatectomy
    Johnson, Scott C.
    Packiam, Vignesh T.
    Golan, Shay
    Cohen, Andrew J.
    Nottingham, Charles U.
    Smith, Norm D.
    UROLOGY, 2017, 100 : 111 - 116
  • [44] Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: Time to Reflect on Contemporary Outcomes
    Wijnhoven, Bas P. L.
    Lagarde, Sjoerd M.
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2021, 39 (01) : 90 - +
  • [45] Minimally Invasive Hernia Repair in Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy
    Kaler, Kamaljot
    Vernez, Simone L.
    Dolich, Matthew
    JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2016, 30 (10) : 1036 - 1040
  • [46] Factors Associated with the Adoption of Minimally Invasive Radical Prostatectomy in the United States
    Ulmer, William D.
    Prasad, Sandip M.
    Kowalczyk, Keith J.
    Gu, Xiangmei
    Dodgion, Christopher
    Lipsitz, Stuart
    Palapattu, Ganesh S.
    Choueiri, Toni K.
    Hu, Jim C.
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2012, 188 (03): : 775 - 780
  • [47] Re: Comparative Effectiveness of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Radical Prostatectomy
    Koupparis, Anthony J.
    Gleave, Martin E.
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2010, 57 (06) : 1118 - 1119
  • [48] Transvesical open prostatectomy for benign prostatic hyperplasia in the era of minimally invasive surgery: Perioperative outcomes of a contemporary series
    Elshal, Ahmed M.
    El-Nahas, Ahmed R.
    Barakat, Tamer S.
    Elsaadany, Mohamed M.
    El-Hefnawy, Ahmed S.
    ARAB JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2013, 11 (04) : 362 - 368
  • [49] COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF PERINEAL VERSUS RETROPUBIC AND MINIMALLY INVASIVE RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY
    Prasad, Sandip
    Gu, Xiangmei
    Lavelle, Rebecca
    Lipsitz, Stuart
    Hu, Jim
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2011, 185 (04): : E33 - E34
  • [50] DIFFUSION OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY: THE PUBLIC CONSEQUENCE OF AN UNTESTED TREATMENT
    Anderson, Christopher
    Atoria, Coral
    Elkin, Elena
    Eastham, James
    Touijer, Karim
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2014, 191 (04): : E388 - E388