early experience with robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

Clicks: 137
ID: 161267
2004
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Star

Ranked #220 of 248 articles by views in journal of molecular structure

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 248 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
We assessed the feasibility of a robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (rLRP) programme through a review of our early experience. Patients and Methods: Seventeen patients underwent rLRP between 1 February 2003 and 31 December 2003 at Singapore General Hospital. All patients had histologically confirmed adenocarcinoma on prostate biopsy and a negative bone scan. The Da Vinci robot was employed. The Montsouris technique was used for our first eight patients, and the Vattikuti Institute Prostatectomy technique was used for all subsequent patients. We studied perioperative parameters and early surgical outcome prospectively. Results: The mean age at diagnosis was 63.9 ± 5.6 years. The median Gleason sum was 6 (range, 5–9), and mean pretreatment prostate-specific antigen level was 10.5 ± 5.4 ng/mL. The mean set-up time was 34 ± 18 minutes, and mean dissection time was 247 ± 43 minutes. Perioperative blood loss averaged 494 ± 330 mL, and three patients required blood transfusion. Normal diet was resumed after 1.7 ± 0.6 days. The mean duration of bladder catheterization was 9.8 ± 6.1 days, and mean hospital stay was 2.7 ± 1.3 days. There was no perioperative mortality or major complications, and no conversion to open radical prostatectomy. From Case 9 onwards, there was significant reduction in operating time (284 vs 215 minutes), blood loss (650 vs 400 mL) and hospital stay (3.8 vs 1.8 days). Conclusions: rLRP is feasible in a practice with a low volume of radical prostatectomies. Significant improvement in perioperative parameters occurs after the first eight cases. This technique confers the benefits of enhanced precision and dexterity for complex laparoscopic work in the pelvic cavity.
Reference Key
sim2004asianearly Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors ;Hong Gee Sim;Sidney K.H. Yip;Weber K.O. Lau;Christopher W.S. Cheng
Journal journal of molecular structure
Year 2004
DOI
10.1016/S1015-9584(09)60060-9
URL
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1015958409600609
Keywords
surgery

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.