The DOI matches its Crossref record.
LAPAROSCOPIC RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY
Abstract
PURPOSE: After the pioneering period when only few teams were performing the procedure, the laparoscopic approach to radical prostatectomy has become widespread with several technical variations. A comprehensive review of the published literature on laparoscopic radical prostatectomy was performed to determine the current state of the art of this surgical innovation in terms of perioperative parameters, functional results and cancer control. MATERIALS AND METHODS: English language, peer reviewed articles published before June 2004 concerning laparoscopic radical prostatectomy were found by MEDLINE query. All articles were analyzed and none were a priori excluded. Conclusions were drawn from series of 50 or more patients. RESULTS: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is being performed at multiple centers worldwide using various surgical approaches and technologies. Analysis of perioperative parameters, including surgical blood loss, operative time, complications and convalescence, demonstrated low morbidity and showed a clear trend toward improvement with increased experience. The reported positive surgical margin rates were lower in more recent series. As measured by prostate specific antigen recurrence and disease-free intervals, oncological results and cancer control rates are difficult to ascertain in the immature series published to date. Functional results in terms of postoperative urinary and sexual function appear encouraging. CONCLUSIONS: Overall the current operative, oncological and functional results of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy appear to approximate those of open radical retropubic prostatectomy. These results justify the considerable interest of the urological community in laparoscopy, as evidenced by its widespread application. Nevertheless, longer followup and more mature data are needed definitively to establish laparoscopic radical prostatectomy as an alternative to the retropubic approach.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Menon, M., Tewari, A., Baize, B., Guillonneau, B., & Vallancien, G. (2002) · Urology · doi:10.1016/s0090-4295(02)01881-2 · Cited by 455
Self-citationVallancien, G., Cathelineau, X., Baumert, H., Doublet, J. D., & Guillonneau, B. (2002) · Journal of Urology · doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(05)64823-9 · Cited by 254
Self-citationManagement of Complications of Prostate Cancer Treatment
Michaelson, M. D., Cotter, S. E., Gargollo, P. C., Zietman, A. L., Dahl, D. M., & Smith, M. R. (2008) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/ca.2008.0002 · Cited by 196
Men's experiences following laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: A qualitative descriptive study
Milne, J. L., Spiers, J. A., & Moore, K. N. (2008) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2007.01.006 · Cited by 48
Metadata
- Authors
- TRABULSI, E. J., & GUILLONNEAU, B.
- Venue
- Journal of Urology
- Published
- 2005-04
- Volume
- 173
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1072-1079
- ISSN
- 0022-5347 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-3792
- OpenAlex
- W2008944090
- Cited by
- 393
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 41.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: LAPAROSCOPIC RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.ju.0000154970.63147.90
- The paper
- TRABULSI, E. J., & GUILLONNEAU, B. (2005). LAPAROSCOPIC RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY. Journal of Urology. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000154970.63147.90
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.