Robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy

2017 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Robotic Assisted ◽  
Simple Prostatectomy

scholarly journals Robotic-assisted versus open simple prostatectomy: Results from a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies

2021 ◽  
Vol 62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simone Scarcella ◽  
Daniele Castellani ◽  
Vineet Gauhar ◽  
Jeremy Yuen-Chun Teoh ◽  
Carlo Giulioni ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Comparative Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Robotic Assisted ◽  
Simple Prostatectomy

Rationale for Robotic-assisted Simple Prostatectomy for Benign Prostatic Obstruction

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (5) ◽  
pp. 643-647 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dielle Meyer ◽  
Samuel Weprin ◽  
Eduardo B. Zukovski ◽  
Francesco Porpiglia ◽  
Lance J. Hampton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Benign Prostatic Obstruction ◽  
Robotic Assisted ◽  
Simple Prostatectomy

Extraperitoneal Approach for Robotic-assisted Simple Prostatectomy

Urology ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 84 (5) ◽  
pp. 1099-1105 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg ◽  
Panagiotis Kallidonis ◽  
Hasan Qazi ◽  
Phuc Ho Thi ◽  
Anja Dietel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Robotic Assisted ◽  
Extraperitoneal Approach ◽  
Simple Prostatectomy

scholarly journals Robotic-Assisted vs. Open Simple Prostatectomy for Large Prostates: A Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhongyou Xia ◽  
Jinze Li ◽  
Xiaoying Yang ◽  
Hao Jing ◽  
Chao Niu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Similar Efficacy ◽  
Prostatic Hyperplasia ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Robotic Assisted ◽  
Simple Prostatectomy ◽  
The Cochrane Library ◽  
Large Prostate ◽  
Review Manager

Purpose: To compare the efficacy and safety of robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy and open simple prostatectomy for large benign prostatic hyperplasia.Methods: We systematically searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, and Science databases for studies published through December 2020. Controlled trials on RASP and OSP for large prostates were included. The meta-analysis was conducted with the Review Manager 5.4 software.Results: A total of seven studies with 3,777 patients were included in the analysis. There were no significant differences in IPSS (WMD, 0.72; 95%CI: −0.31, 1.76; P = 0.17), QoL (WMD, 0.00; 95%CI: −0.39, 0.39; P > 0.99), Qmax (WMD, 1.88; 95% CI: −1.15, 4.91; P = 0.22), or PVR (WMD, −10.48; 95%CI: −25.13, 4.17; P = 0.16) among patients undergoing RASP and OSP. However, compared with patients who underwent OSP, patients who underwent RASP had a shorter LOS (WMD, −2.83; 95%CI: −3.68, −1.98; P < 0.001), less EBL (WMD, −304.68; 95% CI: −432.91, −176.44; P < 0.001), a shorter CT (WMD, −2.61; 95%CI: −3.94, −1.29; P < 0.001), and fewer overall complications (OR, 0.30; 95% CI: 0.16, 0.57; P < 0.001). Nevertheless, RASP was associated with a longer OT (WMD, 59.69, 95% CI: 49.40, 69.98; P < 0.001).Conclusion: The results of the current study demonstrated that RASP provided similar efficacy to those of OSP in the treatment of large prostate, while maintaining better security. Our findings indicate that RASP is a feasible and effective alternative to OSP.

scholarly journals Clinical Outcome of Endoscopic Enucleation of the Prostate Compared With Robotic-Assisted Simple Prostatectomy for Prostates Larger Than 80 cm3 in Aging Male

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (6) ◽  
pp. 155798832110641
Author(s):  
Chen-Pang Hou ◽  
Yu-Hsiang Lin ◽  
Pei-Shan Yang ◽  
Phei-Lang Chang ◽  
Chien-lun Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Operation Time ◽  
The Other ◽  
Final Visit ◽  
Invasive Treatment ◽  
Voiding Function ◽  
Robotic Assisted ◽  
Simple Prostatectomy ◽  
Surgical Methods ◽  
Post Operation ◽  
Endoscopic Enucleation

This study investigated and compared the surgical outcomes of using endoscopic enucleation (thulium: YAG laser and bipolar plasma; ThuLEP) with robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) in the treatment of prostates larger than 80 cm3. Records were obtained for the period from January 2014 to December 2020 for selected patients with BPO who underwent RASP, ThuLEP, or bipolar transurethral enucleation of the prostate (B-TUEP). Patients were excluded if they had active malignant disease, neurogenic bladder, lower urinary tract syndrome for reasons other than BPO, and a history of prostate surgery. Data of 396 patients who underwent B-TUEP, ThuLEP, and RASP were examined. A total of 112 patients met the including criteria, 85 of whom (B-TUEP: 29; ThuLEP: 41; RASP: 15) completed the final visit. The mean operation time and duration of postoperative hospital stays in the RASP group were significantly longer than those of the B-TUEP and ThuLEP groups. Only 1 patient in the RASP group required blood transfusion. The RASP group was superior to the other groups in voiding improvement including Qmax and IPSS voiding score. The pain score of the ThuLEP group after surgery was significantly lower than that of the other two groups during hospitalization, whereas the QoL scores were identical between the three groups at 2 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months post operation. The rates of returning to ER within the first postoperative month did not differ significantly between the three groups, and all the reasons for return involved minor complications that required no additional invasive treatment. These three surgical methods (B-TUEP, ThuLEP, and RASP) are all effective and safe for treating prostates larger than 80 cm3, with each having its particular advantages. B-TUEP requires the shortest operation time, ThuLEP causes the lowest postoperative pain, and RASP results in superior voiding function improvement.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document