Apical surgical margins status in robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy does not depend on disease characteristics

Journal of Endourology

Volumn 26, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 361-365

  Tsivian, Matvey ^a   Zilberman, Dorit E ^a   Ferrandino, Michael N ^a   Madden, John F ^a   Mouraviev, Vladimir ^a   Albala, David M ^b  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b Associated Medical Professionals   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ADULT; AGE; ANATOMIC LANDMARK; ARTICLE; BODY MASS; COHORT ANALYSIS; DISEASE SEVERITY; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; JOB EXPERIENCE; LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL RECORD REVIEW; NERVE SPARING TECHNIQUE; ORGAN WEIGHT; POSITIVE SURGICAL MARGIN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATECTOMY; PROTEIN BLOOD LEVEL; RACE; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; ROBOT ASSISTED LAPAROSCOPIC RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY; ROBOTICS; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE;

HUMANS; LAPAROSCOPY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; NEOPLASM RECURRENCE, LOCAL; NEOPLASM STAGING; PROSTATE; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RISK FACTORS; ROBOTICS;

EID: 84859529587     PISSN: 08927790     EISSN: 1557900X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1089/end.2011.0336     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Swindle P, Eastham JA, Ohori M, et al. Do margins matter? The prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 2008;179(5 Suppl):S47-S51. (Pubitemid 351483915)
2. Eastham JA, Kuroiwa K, Ohori M, et al. Prognostic significance of location of positive margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. Urology 2007;70:965-969. (Pubitemid 350192610)
3. Smith JA, Jr., Chan RC, Chang SS, et al. A comparison of the incidence and location of positive surgical margins in robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and open retropubic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2007;178:2385-2389; discussion 2389-2390.
4. Liss M, Osann K, Ornstein D. Positive surgical margins during robotic radical prostatectomy: A contemporary analysis of risk factors. BJU Int 2008;102:603-608.
5. Zorn KC, Orvieto MA, Mikhail AA, et al. Effect of prostate weight on operative and postoperative outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Urology 2007;69:300-305. (Pubitemid 46274939)
6. Grene FL, Page DL, Fleming ID, et al. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 6th ed. New York: Springer, 2002.
7. Freedland SJ, Banez LL, Sun LL, Fitzsimons NJ, Moul JW. Obese men have higher-grade and larger tumors: An analysis of the duke prostate center database. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2009;12:259-263.
8. Schroeck FR, de Sousa CA, Kalman RA, et al. Trainees do not negatively impact the institutional learning curve for robotic prostatectomy as characterized by operative time, estimated blood loss, and positive surgical margin rate. Urology 2008;71:597-601. (Pubitemid 351442985)
9. Patel VR, Shah S, Arend D. Histopathologic outcomes of robotic radical prostatectomy. ScientificWorldJournal 2006;6:2566-2572.
10. Menon M, Shrivastava A, Kaul S, et al. Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy: Contemporary technique and analysis of results. Eur Urol 2007;51:648-657; discussion 657-648.
11. Yee DS, Narula N, Amin MB, Skarecky DW, Ahlering TE. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: Current evaluation of surgical margins in clinically low-, intermediate-, and high-risk prostate cancer. J Endourol 2009;23:1461-1465.
12. Ploussard G, Xylinas E, Salomon L, et al. Robot-assisted extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Experience in a high-volume laparoscopy reference centre. BJU Int 2009 [Epub ahead of print]; DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X. 2009.09013.x.
13. Ahlering TE, Eichel L, Edwards RA, Lee DI, Skarecky DW. Robotic radical prostatectomy: A technique to reduce pT2 positive margins. Urology 2004;64:1224-1228. (Pubitemid 39647072)
14. Atug F, Castle EP, Srivastav SK, Burgess SV, Thomas R, Davis R. Positive surgical margins in robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: Impact of learning curve on oncologic outcomes. Eur Urol 2006;49:866-871; discussion 871-862.
15. Secin FP, Serio A, Bianco FJ, Jr., et al. Preoperative and intraoperative risk factors for side-specific positive surgical margins in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2007;51:764-771. (Pubitemid 46097287)
16. Chun FK, Briganti A, Antebi E, et al. Surgical volume is related to the rate of positive surgical margins at radical prostatectomy in European patients. BJU Int 2006;98:1204-1209. (Pubitemid 44721225)
17. Levinson AW, Ward NT, Sulman A, et al. The impact of prostate size on perioperative outcomes in a large laparoscopic radical prostatectomy series. J Endourol 2009;23:147-152.
18. Frota R, Turna B, Santos BM, Lin YC, Gill IS, Aron M. The effect of prostate weight on the outcomes of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2008;101:589-593. (Pubitemid 351199271)
19. Freedland SJ, Isaacs WB, Platz EA, et al. Prostate size and risk of high-grade, advanced prostate cancer and biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy: A search database study. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:7546-7554. (Pubitemid 46291818)
20. Palisaar RJ, Noldus J, Graefen M, Erbersdobler A, Haese A, Huland H. Influence of nerve-sparing (NS) procedure during radical prostatectomy (RP) on margin status and biochemical failure. Eur Urol 2005;47:176-184. (Pubitemid 40136541)
21. Shikanov S, Woo J, Al-Ahmadie H, et al. Extrafascial versus interfascial nerve-sparing technique for robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: Comparison of functional outcomes and positive surgical margins characteristics. Urology 2009;74:611-616.