robotic radical prostatectomy
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

565
(FIVE YEARS 122)

H-INDEX

34
(FIVE YEARS 3)

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (24) ◽  
pp. 5723
Author(s):  
Omar Fahmy ◽  
Usama A. Fahmy ◽  
Nabil A. Alhakamy ◽  
Mohd Ghani Khairul-Asri

Background: Single-port robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy has been reported as a safe and feasible technique. However, recent studies comparing single-port versus multiple-port robotic radical prostatectomy have displayed conflicting results. Objectives: To investigate the benefit of single-port robotic radical prostatectomy and the impact on outcome compared to multiple-port robotic radical prostatectomy. Methods: Based on PRISMA and AMSTAR criteria, a systematic review and meta-analysis were carried out. Finally, we considered the controlled studies with two cohorts (one cohort for single-port RARP and the other cohort for multiple-port RARP). For statistical analysis, Review Manager (RevMan) software version 5.4 was used. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was employed to assess the risk of bias. Results: Five non-randomized controlled studies with 666 patients were included. Single-port robotic radical prostatectomy was associated with shorter hospital stays. Only 60.6% of single-port patients (109/180) required analgesia compared to 90% (224/249) of multiple-port patients (Z = 3.50; p = 0.0005; 95% CI 0.07:0.47). Opioid administration was also significantly lower in single-port patients, 26.2% (34/130) vs. 56.6% (77/136) (Z = 4.90; p < 0.00001; 95% CI 0.15:–0.44) There was no significant difference in operative time, blood loss, complication rate, positive surgical margin rate, or continence at day 90. Conclusion: The available data on single-port robotic radical prostatectomy is very limited. However, it seems comparable to the multiple-port platform in terms of short-term outcomes when performed with expert surgeons. Single-port prostatectomies might provide a shorter hospital stay and a lower requirement for opioids; however, randomized trials with long-term follow-up are mandatory for valid comparisons.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Razvan‐George Rahota ◽  
Ambroise Salin ◽  
Jean‐Romain Gautier ◽  
Christophe Almeras ◽  
Valérie Garnault ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 73 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabrizio DAL MORO ◽  
Federico GOFFO ◽  
Giordana FERRAIOLI ◽  
Carlotta ZABORRA ◽  
Claudio VALOTTO

2021 ◽  
Vol 33 ◽  
pp. S21-S22
Author(s):  
J.I. Caicedo Cardenas ◽  
J. Santander Barrios ◽  
C.G. Trujillo Ordoñez ◽  
M. Plata Salazar ◽  
C.A. Medina Marquez ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 73 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefano PULIATTI ◽  
Pietro PIAZZA ◽  
Giovanni E. CACCIAMANI ◽  
Juan GÓMEZ RIVAS ◽  
Mark TARATKIN ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 33 ◽  
pp. S100
Author(s):  
G. McClintock ◽  
J. Makary ◽  
M. Broe ◽  
S. Leslie ◽  
N. Ahmadi ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 33 ◽  
pp. S38
Author(s):  
E. Köseoğlu ◽  
A. Özkan ◽  
M.C. Kiremit ◽  
M. Kılıç ◽  
A.F. Sarıkaya ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document