Progression of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Improved outcomes with the extraperitoneal approach and a running anastomosis

Journal of Endourology

Volumn 20, Issue 8, 2006, Pages 574-579

  Cohen, Michael S ^a   Triaca, Veronica ^a   Silverman, Mark L ^a   Tuerk, Ingolf A ^a  

^a LAHEY HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANALGESIC AGENT; NARCOTIC ANALGESIC AGENT;

ADULT; ANASTOMOSIS; ARTICLE; BLADDER FUNCTION; BLEEDING; CONTROLLED STUDY; CYSTOGRAPHY; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OPERATION DURATION; PENIS ERECTION; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; RECURRENT DISEASE; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SURGICAL APPROACH; SUTURE;

ANASTOMOSIS, SURGICAL; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; HUMANS; LAPAROSCOPY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROSTATE; PROSTATECTOMY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; TREATMENT OUTCOME; URETHRA; URINARY BLADDER;

EID: 33750627151     PISSN: 08927790     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1089/end.2006.20.574     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Schuessler WW, Kavoussi LR, Clayman RV, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Initial case report [abstract 130]. J Urol 1992;147(suppl):246A.
2. Schuessler WW, Schulam PG, Clayman RV, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Initial short-term experience. Urology 1997;50:854-857.
3. Roumeguere T, Bollens R, Vanden Bossche M, et al. Radical prostatectomy: A prospective comparison of oncological and functional results between open and laparoscopic approaches. World J Urol 2003;20:360-366.
4. Rassweiler J, Seemann O, Schulze M, et al. Laparoscopic versus open radical prostatectomy: A comparative study at a single institution. J Urol 2003;169:1689-1693.
5. Raboy A, Ferzli G, Albert P. Initial experience with extraperitoneal endoscopic radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 1997;50:849-853.
6. Cathelineau X, Cahill D, Widmer H, et al. Transperitoneal or extraperitoneal approach for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: A false debate over a real challenge. J Urol 2004;171:714-716.
7. Eden CG, King D, Kooiman GG, et al. Transperitoneal or extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Does the approach matter? J Urol 2004;172:2218-2223.
8. Hoznek A, Antiphon P, Borkowski T, et al. Assessment of surgical technique and perioperative morbidity associated with extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Urology 2003;61:617-622.
9. Brown JA, Rodin D, Lee B, Dahl DM. Transperitoneal versus extraperitoneal approach to laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: An assessment of 156 cases. Urology 2005;65:320-324.
10. Rhee HK, Triaca V, Sorcini A, et al. Transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Descending technique. J Endourol 2004;18:601-604; discussion 604.
11. Van Velthoven RF, Ahlering TE, Peltier A, et al. Technique for laparoscopic running urethrovesical anastomosis: The single knot method. Urology 2003;61:699-702.
12. Stolzenburg JU, Do M, Pfeiffer H, et al. The endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (EERPE): Technique and initial experience. World J Urol 2002;20:48-55.