Utilization and timing of blood transfusions following open and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

Journal of Endourology

Volumn 28, Issue 12, 2014, Pages 1418-1423

  Korets, Ruslan ^a   Weinberg, Aaron C ^a   Alberts, Blake D ^a   Woldu, Solomon L ^a   Mann, Mark J ^a   Badani, Ketan K ^a  

^a Department of Medicine   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BLEEDING DISORDER; BLOOD TRANSFUSION; COHORT ANALYSIS; DATA BASE; DYSPNEA; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HEMATOCRIT; HUMAN; INTRAOPERATIVE BLOOD LOSS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL HISTORY; MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGERY; OPEN RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY; OPERATION DURATION; OPERATIVE BLOOD LOSS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PERIOPERATIVE PERIOD; PEROPERATIVE COMPLICATION; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; PREDICTION; PREOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PROSTATECTOMY; ROBOT ASSISTED RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY; ROBOTICS; SURGICAL APPROACH; SURGICAL PATIENT; TIME TO TREATMENT; BLOOD CLOTTING DISORDER; FACTUAL DATABASE; MIDDLE AGED; PROCEDURES; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RISK; ROBOTIC SURGICAL PROCEDURE; STATISTICAL MODEL; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UTILIZATION;

AGED; BLOOD COAGULATION DISORDERS; BLOOD LOSS, SURGICAL; BLOOD TRANSFUSION; DATABASES, FACTUAL; DYSPNEA; HEMATOCRIT; HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; ODDS RATIO; OPERATIVE TIME; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; ROBOTIC SURGICAL PROCEDURES; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84915771531     PISSN: 08927790     EISSN: 1557900X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1089/end.2014.0225     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Bill-Axelson A, et al. Radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2014;370:932-942.
2. Glance LG, et al. Association between intraoperative blood transfusion and mortality and morbidity in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. Anesthesiology 2011;114:283-292.
3. Farnham SB, et al. Intraoperative blood loss and transfusion requirements for robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy versus radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 2006;67:360-363.
4. Hu JC, et al. Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy. JAMA 2009;302:1557-1564.
5. Liu JJ, et al. Perioperative outcomes for laparoscopic and robotic compared with open prostatectomy using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. Urology 2013;82:579-583.
6. Novara G, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of peri-operative outcomes and complications after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012;62:431-452.
7. Pierorazio PM, et al. Trends in immediate perioperative morbidity and delay in discharge after open and minimally invasive radical prostatectomy (RP): A 20-year institutional experience. BJU Int 2013;112:45-53.
8. Trinh QD, et al. Perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared with open radical prostatectomy: Results from the nationwide inpatient sample. Eur Urol 2012;61:679-685.
9. Koch CG, et al. What are the real rates of postoperative complications: Elucidating inconsistencies between administrative and clinical data sources. J Am Coll Surg 2012;214:798-805.
10. Birkmeyer JD, et al. Blueprint for a new American College of Surgeons: National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. J Am Coll Surg 2008;207:777-782.
11. Rowell KS, et al. Use of national surgical quality improvement program data as a catalyst for quality improvement. J Am Coll Surg 2007;204:1293-1300.
12. Pilecki MA, et al. National multi-institutional comparison of 30-day postoperative complication and readmission rates between open retropubic radical prostatectomy and robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy using NSQIP. J En-dourol 2014;28:430-436.
13. American College of Surgeons. American College of Surgeons National Quality Improvement Program User Guide for the 2011 Participant Use File [NSQIP Online User Guide]. Available at http://site.acsnsqip.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/ACSNSQIP.PUF-.UserGuide.2012.pdf (last accessed February 5, 2014).
14. Alemozaffar M, et al. Benchmarks for operative outcomes of robotic and open radical prostatectomy: Results from the health professionals follow-up study. Eur Urol 2014 [Epub ahead of print]; DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.01.039.
15. Zorn KC, et al. Continued improvement of perioperative, pathological and continence outcomes during 700 robotassisted radical prostatectomies. Can J Urol 2009;16:4742-4749; discussion 4749.
16. Davis JW, et al. Learning curve assessment of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared with open-surgery controls from the premier perspective database. J Endourol 2014; 28:560-566.
17. Schroeck FR, 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.