Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Prostate cancer

The challenge of comparing open and laparoscopic surgery

  • News & Views
  • Published:

From Nature Reviews Urology

View current issue Sign up to alerts

A recent study using claims data to compare open retropubic with minimally invasive prostatectomy has revealed higher rates of genitourinary complications, incontinence and erectile dysfunction after the laparoscopic procedure. However, there are a number of inherent problems associated with the use of claims-based diagnoses for the evaluation of surgical techniques.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Walsh, P. C. 2008 Whitmore Lecture: Radical prostatectomy—where we were and where we are going. Urol. Oncol. 27, 246–250 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Montie, J. E. & Smith, J. A. Whitmoreisms: memorable quotes from Willet F. Whitmore, Jr, M. D. Urology 63, 207–209 (2004).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Walsh, P. C. Anatomic radical prostatectomy: evolution of the surgical technique. J. Urol. 160, 2418–2424 (1998).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Abbou, C. C. et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with a remote controlled robot. J. Urol. 165, 1964–1966 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ficarra, V. et al. Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Eur. Urol. 55, 1037–1063 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cropper, C. M. The robot is in—and ready to operate. Business Week 110–112 (14 Mar 2005).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Box, G. N. & Ahlering, T. E. Robotic radical prostatectomy: long-term outcomes. Curr. Opin. Urol. 18, 173–179 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hu, J. C., Wang, Q., Pashos, C. L., Lipsitz, S. R. & Keating, N. L. Utilization and outcomes of minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. J. Clin. Oncol. 26, 2278–2284 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hu, J. C. et al. Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy. JAMA 302, 1557–1564 (2009).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Savage, C. J. & Vickers, A. J. Low annual caseloads of United States surgeons conducting radical prostatectomy. J. Urol. 182, 2677–2679 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of California Los Angeles, Box 951738, 650 Charles Young Drive South, Los Angeles, 90095-1738, CA, USA

    Karim Chamie & Mark S. Litwin

Authors
  1. Karim Chamie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mark S. Litwin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark S. Litwin.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chamie, K., Litwin, M. The challenge of comparing open and laparoscopic surgery. Nat Rev Urol 7, 121–122 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2010.21

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2010.21

  • Springer Nature Limited

Search

Navigation