The DOI matches its Crossref record.
ROBOTIC RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY IN THE COMMUNITY SETTING—THE LEARNING CURVE AND BEYOND: INITIAL 200 CASES
Abstract
PURPOSE: The introduction of robotic assistance has the potential to improve surgical outcomes and reduce the steep learning curve associated with conventional laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. We report on our experience with robotic radical prostatectomy in the community setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 200 patients underwent robotic radical prostatectomy during 18 months. Prospective data collection included a quality of life (Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite) questionnaire, basic demographics, prostate specific antigen (PSA), clinical stage and Gleason grade. Operative outcome measures included operative time, estimated blood loss and complications. Postoperative outcome measures included hospital stay, catheter time, pathology, PSA and return of continence. RESULTS: Average operative time was 141 minutes with an estimated blood loss of 75 cc. The intraoperative complication rate was 1% with no mortality, reexploration or transfusion. Of the patients 95% were discharged home on postoperative day 1 (1 to 3) with hematocrit averaging 34.5 (range 25 to 45). The average difference in preoperative and postoperative hematocrit was 3 points (range -2 to 15). Average catheter time was 7.2 days (range 5 to 15). The positive margin rate was 10.5% for the entire series, 5.7% for T2 tumors, 28.5% (T3a), 20% (T3b) and 33% (T4a). Of the patients 95% had undetectable PSA (less than 0.1 ng/ml) at average followup of 9.7 months. Continence at 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months was 47%, 78%, 89%, 92% and 98%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our initial experience with robotic radical prostatectomy is promising. The learning curve was approximately 20 to 25 cases. With a structured methodical approach we were able to implement robotics safely and effectively into our community practice with minimal patient morbidity, and good oncological and functional outcomes.
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
Vattikuti Institute Prostatectomy: Contemporary Technique and Analysis of Results
Menon, M., Shrivastava, A., Kaul, S., Badani, K. K., Fumo, M., Bhandari, M., & Peabody, J. O. (2007) · European Urology · doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2006.10.055 · Cited by 538
Evidence from Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review
Ficarra, V., Cavalleri, S., Novara, G., Aragona, M., & Artibani, W. (2007) · European Urology · doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2006.06.017 · Cited by 378
Patel, V. R., Coelho, R. F., Palmer, K. J., & Rocco, B. (2009) · European Urology · doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2009.06.007 · Cited by 323
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- PATEL, V. R., TULLY, A. S., HOLMES, R., & LINDSAY, J.
- Venue
- Journal of Urology
- Published
- 2005-07
- Volume
- 174
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 269-272
- ISSN
- 0022-5347 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-3792
- OpenAlex
- W2060108213
- Cited by
- 447
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 32.80
- 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: ROBOTIC RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY IN THE COMMUNITY SETTING—THE LEARNING CURVE AND BEYOND: INITIAL 200 CASES. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.ju.0000162082.12962.40
- The paper
- PATEL, V. R., TULLY, A. S., HOLMES, R., & LINDSAY, J. (2005). ROBOTIC RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY IN THE COMMUNITY SETTING—THE LEARNING CURVE AND BEYOND: INITIAL 200 CASES. Journal of Urology. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000162082.12962.40
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.