Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://hdl.handle.net/2440/22891
Citations | ||
Scopus | Web of Science® | Altmetric |
---|---|---|
?
|
?
|
Type: | Journal article |
Title: | Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer: A systematic review of comparative studies |
Author: | Tooher, R. Swindle, P. Woo, H. Miller, J. Maddern, G. |
Citation: | The Journal of Urology, 2006; 175(6):2011-2017 |
Publisher: | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins |
Issue Date: | 2006 |
ISSN: | 0022-5347 1527-3792 |
Statement of Responsibility: | Rebecca Tooher, Peter Swindle, Henry Woo, John Miller and Guy Maddern |
Abstract: | Purpose: We compared the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic and open radical prostatectomy through a systematic assessment of the literature. Materials and Methods: Literature databases were searched from 1996 to December 2004 inclusive. Studies comparing transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, extraperitoneal endoscopic radical prostatectomy or robot assisted radical prostatectomy with open radical retropubic prostatectomy or radical perineal prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer were included. Comparisons between different laparoscopic approaches were also included. Results: We identified 30 comparative studies, of which none were randomized controlled trials. There were 21 studies comparing laparoscopic with open prostatectomy with a total of 2,301 and 1,757 patients, respectively, and 9 comparing different laparoscopic approaches with a total of 1,148 patients. In terms of safety there did not appear to be any important differences in the complication rate between laparoscopic and open approaches. However, blood loss and transfusions were lower for laparoscopic approaches. In terms of efficacy operative time was longer for laparoscopic than for open prostatectomy but length of stay and duration of catheterization were shorter. Positive margin rates and recurrence-free survival were similar. Continence and potency were not well reported but they appeared similar for the 2 approaches. There were no important differences between laparoscopic approaches. Conclusions: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is emerging as an alternative to open radical prostatectomy but randomized, controlled trials considering patient relevant outcomes, such as survival, continence and potency, with sufficient followup are required to determine relative safety and efficacy. |
Keywords: | Prostate laparoscopy prostatectomy prostatic neoplasms endoscopy |
Description: | Copyright © 2006 American Urological Association Published by Elsevier Inc. |
DOI: | 10.1016/S0022-5347(06)00265-5 |
Description (link): | http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/706695/description#description |
Published version: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(06)00265-5 |
Appears in Collections: | Aurora harvest 6 Surgery publications |
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.