Comparison of extraperitoneal and transperitoneal pelvic lymph node dissection during minimally invasive radical prostatectomy

Journal of Endourology

Volumn 25, Issue 12, 2011, Pages 1883-1887

  Mullins, Jeffrey K ^a   Hyndman, M Eric ^a   Mettee, Lynda Z ^a   Pavlovich, Christian P ^a  

^a DEPARTMENT OF PATHOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BODY MASS; EXTRAPERITONEAL PELVIS LYMPHADENECTOMY; FEMALE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGERY; PELVIS LYMPH NODE; PELVIS LYMPHADENECTOMY; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; POSTOPERATIVE HEMORRHAGE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATECTOMY; ROBOTICS; SURGICAL RISK; TRANSPERITONEAL PELVIS LYMPHADENECTOMY;

DEMOGRAPHY; HUMANS; LYMPH NODE EXCISION; LYMPH NODES; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PELVIS; PERITONEUM; PROSTATECTOMY; SURGICAL PROCEDURES, MINIMALLY INVASIVE;

EID: 82455212417     PISSN: 08927790     EISSN: 1557900X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1089/end.2011.0209     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Allaf ME, Palapattu GS, Trock BJ, et al. Anatomical extent of lymph node dissection impact on men with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2004;1721840-1844.
2. Briganti A, Karnes JR, Da Pozzo LF, et al. Two positive nodes represent a significant cut-off value for cancer specific survival in patients with node positive prostate cancer.-β new proposal based on a two-institution experience on 703 consecutive N+ patients treated with radical prostatectomy, extended pelvic lymph node dissection and adjuvant therapy. Eur Urol 2009;55261-270.
3. Masterson TA, Bianco FJ Jr, Vickers AJ, et al. The association between total and positive lymph node counts, and disease progression in clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2006;1751320-1325.
4. Briganti A, Chun FK, Salonia A, et al. Critical assessment of ideal nodal yield at pelvic lymphadenectomy to accurately diagnose prostate cancer nodal metastasis in patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 2007;69 147-151.
5. Briganti A, Chun FK, Salonia A, et al. Complications and other surgical outcomes associated with extended pelvic lymphadenectomy in men with localized prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2006;501006-1013.
6. Touijer K, Rabbani F, Otero JR, et al. Standard versus limited pelvic lymph node dissection for prostate cancer in patients with a predicted probability of nodal metastasis greater than 1%. J Urol 2007;178120-124.
7. Yates J, Haleblian G, Stein B, et al. The impact of robotic surgery on pelvic lymph node dissection during radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer The Brown University early robotic experience. Can J Urol 2009;16 4842-4846.
8. D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 1998;280969-974.
9. Guillonneau B, Vallancien G. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy The Montsouris technique. J Urol 2000;163 1643-1649.
10. Rassweiler J, Sentker L, Seemann O, et al. Heilbronn laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Technique and results after 100 cases. Eur Urol 2001;4054-64.
11. Pagliarulo V, Hawes D, Brands FH, et al. Detection of occult lymph node metastases in locally advanced node-negative prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2006;242735-2742.
12. DiMarco DS, Zincke H, Sebo TJ, et al. The extent of lymphadenectomy for pTXNO prostate cancer does not affect prostate cancer outcome in the prostate specific antigen era. J Urol 2005;1731121-1125.
13. Brown JA, Rodin D, Lee B, Dahl DM. Transperitoneal versus extraperitoneal approach to laparoscopic radical prostatectomy An assessment of 156 cases. Urology 2005;65320-324.
14. Cathelineau X, Cahill D, Widmer H, et al. Transperitoneal or extraperitoneal approach for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy-β false debate over a real challenge. J Urol 2004;171 714-716.
15. 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;61617-622.
16. Katz DJ, Yee DS, Godoy G, et al. Lymph node dissection during robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy Comparison of lymph node yield and clinical outcomes when including common iliac nodes with standard template dissection. BJU Int 2010;106391-396.
17. Ruiz L, Salomon L, Hoznek A, et al. Comparison of early oncologic results of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy by extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal approach. Eur Urol 2004;4650-56.
18. Porpiglia F, Terrone C, Tarabuzzi R, et al. Transperitoneal versus extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy Experience of a single center. Urology 2006;68376-380.
19. Eden CG, King D, Kooiman GG, et al. Transperitoneal or extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy Does the approach matter J Urol 2004;1722218-2223.
20. Joseph JV, Arya M, Patel HR. Robotic surgery The coming of a new era in surgical innovation. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2005;57-9.
21. Eden CG, Arora A, Rouse P. Extended vs standard pelvic lymphadenectomy during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int 2010;106537-542.
22. Wyler SF, Sulser T, Seifert HH, et al. Laparoscopic extended pelvic lymph node dissection for high-risk prostate cancer. Urology 2006;68883-887.