Low Quality of Evidence for Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy: A Problem Not Only in the Robotic Literature

European Urology

Volumn 57, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 938-940

  Graefen, Markus ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HAMBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CANCER PATIENT; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; EDITORIAL; EUROPE; HOSPITAL COST; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; PUBLISHING; QUALITY CONTROL; RADICAL RETROPUBIC PROSTATECTOMY; ROBOTICS; SURGICAL APPROACH; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UNITED STATES;

CLINICAL COMPETENCE; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; LAPAROSCOPY; MALE; PROSTATECTOMY; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; ROBOTICS;

EID: 77951567921     PISSN: 03022838     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2010.02.004     Document Type: Editorial

References (17)

1. Graefen M. The modified Clavien system: a plea for a standardized reporting system for surgical complications. Eur Urol 57 (2010) 387-389
2. Kang D.C., Hardee M.J., Fesperman S.F., Stoffs T.L., and Dahm P. Low quality of evidence for robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: results of a systematic review of the published literature. Eur Urol 57 (2010) 930-937
3. Menon M., Shrivastava A., Bhandari M., Satyanarayana R., Siva S., and Agarwal P.K. Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy: technical modifications in 2009. Eur Urol 56 (2009) 89-96
4. Patel V.R., Coelho R.F., Palmer K.J., and Rocco B. Periurethral suspension stitch during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: description of the technique and continence outcomes. Eur Urol 56 (2009) 472-478
5. Graefen M., Walz J., and Huland H. Open retropubic nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 49 (2006) 38-48
6. Stolzenburg J.-U., Rabenalt R., Do M., et al. Intrafascial nerve-sparing endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 53 (2008) 931-940
7. Budäus L., Isbarn H., Schlomm T., et al. Current technique of open intrafascial nerve-sparing retropubic prostatectomy. Eur Urol 56 (2009) 317-324
8. Ficarra V., Novara G., Artibani W., et al. Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol 55 (2009) 1037-1063
9. Montorsi F., Brock G., Lee J., et al. Effect of nightly versus on-demand vardenafil on recovery of erectile function in men following bilateral nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 54 (2008) 924-931
10. Quinlan D.M., Epstein J.I., Carter B.S., and Walsh P.C. Sexual function following radical prostatectomy: influence of preservation of neurovascular bundles. J Urol 145 (1991) 998-1002
11. Murphy D.G., Bjartell A., Ficarra V., et al. Downsides of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: limitations and complications. Eur Urol 57 (2010) 735-746
12. Vickers A.J., Bianco F.J., Serio A.M., et al. The surgical learning curve for prostate cancer control after radical prostatectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst 99 (2007) 1171-1177
13. Bolenz C., Gupta A., Hotze T., et al. Cost comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and open radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Eur Urol 57 (2010) 453-458
14. Mulhall J.P., Rojaz-Cruz C., and Müller A. An analysis of sexual health information on radical prostatectomy websites. BJU Int 105 (2010) 68-72
15. Hu J.C., Gu X., Lipsitz S.R., et al. Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy. JAMA 302 (2009) 1557-1564
16. Schroeck F.R., Krupski T.L., Sun L., et al. Satisfaction and regret after open retropubic or robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 54 (2008) 785-793
17. Hu J.C., Wang Q., Pashos C.L., et al. Utilization and outcomes of minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol 26 (2008) 2278-2284