Erratum: Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: early outcomes from a randomised controlled phase 3 study (The Lancet (2016) 388(10049) (1057–1066) (S014067361630592X) (10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30592-X));Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: early outcomes from a randomised controlled phase 3 study

The Lancet

Volumn 388, Issue 10049, 2016, Pages 1057-1066

  Yaxley, John W ^a   Coughlin, Geoffrey D ^a   Chambers, Suzanne K ^b,c,d,e,f   Occhipinti, Stefano ^b   Samaratunga, Hema ^c,g,h   Zajdlewicz, Leah ^e   Dunglison, Nigel ^a   Carter, Rob ⁱ   Williams, Scott ^j   Payton, Diane J ^k   Perry Keene, Joanna ^k   Lavin, Martin F ^c   Gardiner, Robert A ^a,c,d  

^a ROYAL BRISBANE AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^b GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

^d EDITH COWAN UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^e CANCER COUNCIL QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

^f PROSTATE CANCER FOUNDATION OF AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

^g Aquesta Specialized Uropathology   (Australia)

^h PRINCESS ALEXANDRA HOSPITAL   (Australia)

ⁱ DEAKIN UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^j PETER MACCALLUM CANCER CENTRE   (Australia)

^k Pathology Queensland   (Australia)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY; LIFE EXPECTANCY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PHASE 3 CLINICAL TRIAL; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; QUALITY OF LIFE; RADICAL RETROPUBIC PROSTATECTOMY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; ROBOT ASSISTED SURGERY; SEXUAL FUNCTION; TREATMENT OUTCOME; URINARY TRACT FUNCTION; ADVERSE EFFECTS; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMORBIDITY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; LAPAROSCOPY; MICTURITION; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PENIS ERECTION; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; PROCEDURES; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; QUEENSLAND; ROBOTIC SURGICAL PROCEDURE; SELF REPORT;

ADULT; AGED; COMORBIDITY; HUMANS; LAPAROSCOPY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PENILE ERECTION; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUEENSLAND; ROBOTIC SURGICAL PROCEDURES; SELF REPORT; TREATMENT OUTCOME; URINATION;

EID: 84986308277     PISSN: 01406736     EISSN: 1474547X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30903-0     Document Type: Erratum

References (36)

1. 1 Ferlay, J, Soerjomataram, I, Ervik, M, et al. GLOBOCAN 2012 v1.0, Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 11. http://globocan.iarc.fr/Pages/fact_sheets_cancer.aspx, 2012 (accessed July 22, 2016).
2. 2 Binder, J, Kramer, W, Robotically-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 87 (2001), 408–410.
3. 3 Sundi, D, Han, M, Limitations of assessing value in robotic surgery for prostate cancer: what data should patients and physicians use to make the best decision?. J Clin Oncol 32 (2014), 1394–1395.
4. 4 Wood, DP, Schulte, R, Dunn, RL, et al. Short-term health outcome differences between robotic and conventional radical prostatectomy. Urology 70 (2007), 945–949.
5. 5 Ball, AJ, Gambill, B, Fabrizio, MD, et al. Prospective longitudinal comparative study of early health-related quality-of-life outcomes in patients undergoing surgical treatment for localized prostate cancer: a short-term evaluation of five approaches from a single institution. J Endourol 20 (2006), 723–731.
6. 6 Smith, JA Jr, Radical prostatectomy for low risk carcinoma of the prostate. World J Urol 26 (2008), 443–446.
7. 7 Gardiner, RA, Yaxley, J, Coughlin, G, et al. A randomised trial of robotic and open prostatectomy in men with localised prostate cancer. BMC Cancer, 12, 2012, 189.
8. 8 Altman, DG, Schulz, KF, Moher, D, et al. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 134 (2001), 663–694.
9. 9 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 49 (2006), 866–871.
10. 10 Wei, JT, Dunn, RL, Litwin, MS, Sandler, HM, Sanda, MG, Development and validation of the expanded prostate cancer index composite (EPIC) for comprehensive assessment of health-related quality of life in men with prostate cancer. Urology 56 (2000), 899–905.
11. 11 Rosen, RC, Riley, A, Wagner, G, Osterloh, IH, Kirkpatrick, J, Mishra, A, The international index of erectile function (IIEF): a multidimensional scale for assessment of erectile dysfunction. Urology 49 (1997), 822–830.
12. 12 Barry, MJ, Fowler, FJ Jr, O'Leary, MP, et al. The American Urological Association symptom index for benign prostatic hyperplasia. The Measurement Committee of the American Urological Association. J Urol 148 (1992), 1549–1557.
13. 13 Medical Outcomes Trust and Quality Metric Incorporated. SF-36: SF-36v2TM Health Survey; (IQOLA SF36v2 Standard, English (Australia), 7/03), 1992, Medical Outcomes Trust and Quality Metric Incorporated, Health Assessment Lab, Lincoln, RI 2003.
14. 14 McCarthy, M Jr, Chang, CH, Pickard, AS, et al. Visual analog scales for assessing surgical pain. J Am Coll Surg 201 (2005), 245–252.
15. 15 Horowitz, M, Wilner, N, Alvarez, W, Impact of Event Scale: a measure of subjective stress. Psychosom Med 41 (1979), 209–218.
16. 16 Zigmond, AS, Snaith, RP, The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand 67 (1983), 361–370.
17. 17 Richardson, J, Iezzi, A, Khan, MA, Maxwell, A, Validity and reliability of the assessment of quality of life (AQoL)-8D multi-attribute utility instrument. Patient 7 (2014), 85–96.
18. 18 Schover, LR, Canada, AL, Yuan, Y, et al. A randomized trial of internet-based versus traditional sexual counseling for couples after localized prostate cancer treatment. Cancer 118 (2012), 500–509.
19. 19 Jo, B, Statistical power in randomized intervention studies with noncompliance. Psychol Methods 7 (2002), 178–193.
20. 20 Schuirmann, DJ, A comparison of the two one-sided tests procedure and the power approach for assessing the equivalence of average bioavailability. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 15 (1987), 657–680.
21. 21 Dindo, D, Demartines, N, Clavien, PA, Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240 (2004), 205–213.
22. 22 Ficarra, V, Novara, G, Ahlering, TE, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting potency rates after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 62 (2012), 418–430.
23. 23 Ficarra, V, Novara, G, Rosen, RC, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 62 (2012), 405–417.
24. 24 Haglind, E, Carlsson, S, Stranne, J, et al. Urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction after robotic versus open radical prostatectomy: a prospective, controlled, nonrandomised trial. Eur Urol 68 (2015), 216–225.
25. 25 Isgoren, AE, Saitz, TR, Serefoglu, EC, Erectile function outcomes after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: is it superior to open retropubic or laparoscopic approach?. Sex Med Rev 2 (2014), 10–23.
26. 26 Novara, G, Ficarra, V, Mocellin, S, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting oncologic outcome after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 62 (2012), 382–404.
27. 27 Hu, JC, Gandaglia, G, Karakiewicz, PI, et al. Comparative effectiveness of robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy cancer control. Eur Urol 66 (2014), 666–672.
28. 28 Meeks, JJ, Eastham, JA, Radical prostatectomy: positive surgical margins matter. Urol Oncol 31 (2013), 974–979.
29. 29 Yossepowitch, O, Briganti, A, Eastham, JA, et al. Positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and contemporary update. Eur Urol 65 (2014), 303–313.
30. 30 Eastham, JA, Kattan, MW, Riedel, E, et al. Variations among individual surgeons in the rate of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 170 (2003), 2292–2295.
31. 31 Suardi, N, DellOglio, P, Gallina, A, et al. Evaluation of positive surgical margins in patients undergoing robot-assisted and open radical prostatectomy according to preoperative risk groups. Urol Oncol, 34, 2016, 57.
32. 32 Chuang, AY, Epstein, JI, Positive surgical margins in areas of capsular incision in otherwise organ-confined disease at radical prostatectomy: histologic features and pitfalls. Am J Surg Pathol 32 (2008), 1201–1206.
33. 33 Liss, MA, Palazzi, K, Stroup, SP, Jabaji, R, Raheem, OA, Kane, CJ, Outcomes and complications of pelvic lymph node dissection during robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. World J Urol 31 (2013), 481–488.
34. 34 Jung, JH, Seo, JW, Lim, MS, et al. Extended pelvic lymph node dissection including internal iliac packet should be performed during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 22 (2012), 785–790.
35. 35 Perry-Keene, J, Ferguson, P, Samaratunga, H, Nacey, JN, Delahunt, B, Total submission of pelvic lymphadenectomy tissues removed during radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer increases lymph node yield and detection of micrometastases. Histopathology 64 (2014), 399–404.
36. 36 Gandaglia, G, Sammon, JD, Chang, SL, et al. Comparative effectiveness of robot-assisted and open radical prostatectomy in the postdissemination era. J Clin Oncol 32 (2014), 1419–1426.