Perioperative and continence outcomes of robotic radical prostatectomy in elderly Indian men (≥70 years): A sub-group analysis

Introduction: Many healthy elderly Indian men seek surgical treatment for localized prostate cancer. Quite often, radical surgery is not offered to the patients over 70 years of age due to the perception of increased side-effects and complications. We have previously reported our results of robotic radical prostatectomy in a study comprising 150 Indian patients, where almost a quarter of patients were elderly. This subgroup analysis was therefore focused on evaluating perioperative and continence outcomes in elderly men (≥70 years) with localized prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: Between April 2010 and August 2013, 153 men had robot-assisted radical prostatectomy performed by two surgeons. Of the 150 men analyzed, 39 (26%) were aged ≥70 years. All patients underwent robotic prostatectomy using a 4 arm da Vinci surgical system. Pre-operative, intraoperative and post-operative parameters were studied. Check cystogram was performed in all patients prior to catheter removal. Complications were categorized using the Clavien-Dindo classification system. Continence was defined as use of "no pad" or security liner only. All data were recorded prospectively and analyzed using SPSS version 20. Results: There were no significant intraoperative or perioperative complications in this group. Median blood loss during surgery was 150 mL. None of the patient required blood transfusion. There were two minor complications (5.1%) within the first 30 days of surgery: Minimal anastomotic site leak (one patient) requiring replacement and prolongation of Foley′s drainage by 1 week and ileus (one patient). No patient had any cardiopulmonary or vascular complications in the post-operative period. The median duration of hospital stay was 3 days. The median duration of catheterization was 7 days. No patient had problem of bladder neck stenosis in the follow-up period. At 1 month, 3 months, 6 months and 1 year of follow-up, 66.7% (n = 26), 74.3% (n = 29), 87.9% (n = 34) and 94.8% (n = 37), respectively, were continent. Conclusions: Robotic surgery is safe and feasible in a select group of elderly patients. It has acceptable and minimal perioperative complications along with good continence outcome. Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Rajiv Yadav [verfasserIn] Narmada P Gupta [verfasserIn] Emmanuel E Akpo [verfasserIn] Anand Kumar [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2015

Schlagwörter:	Continence elderly men prostate cancer robotic prostatectomy robotic surgery

Übergeordnetes Werk:	In: Indian Journal of Urology - Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2017, 31(2015), 3, Seite 229-233
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:31 ; year:2015 ; number:3 ; pages:229-233

Links:	Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Journal toc Journal toc

DOI / URN:	10.4103/0970-1591.159622

Katalog-ID:	DOAJ015856836

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	DOAJ015856836
003	DE-627
005	20230310075608.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	230226s2015 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.4103/0970-1591.159622 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)DOAJ015856836
035			\|a (DE-599)DOAJ6f973b15db064343b96fc8641d146283
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
050		0	\|a RC870-923
100	0		\|a Rajiv Yadav \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Perioperative and continence outcomes of robotic radical prostatectomy in elderly Indian men (≥70 years): A sub-group analysis
264		1	\|c 2015
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a Introduction: Many healthy elderly Indian men seek surgical treatment for localized prostate cancer. Quite often, radical surgery is not offered to the patients over 70 years of age due to the perception of increased side-effects and complications. We have previously reported our results of robotic radical prostatectomy in a study comprising 150 Indian patients, where almost a quarter of patients were elderly. This subgroup analysis was therefore focused on evaluating perioperative and continence outcomes in elderly men (≥70 years) with localized prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: Between April 2010 and August 2013, 153 men had robot-assisted radical prostatectomy performed by two surgeons. Of the 150 men analyzed, 39 (26%) were aged ≥70 years. All patients underwent robotic prostatectomy using a 4 arm da Vinci surgical system. Pre-operative, intraoperative and post-operative parameters were studied. Check cystogram was performed in all patients prior to catheter removal. Complications were categorized using the Clavien-Dindo classification system. Continence was defined as use of "no pad" or security liner only. All data were recorded prospectively and analyzed using SPSS version 20. Results: There were no significant intraoperative or perioperative complications in this group. Median blood loss during surgery was 150 mL. None of the patient required blood transfusion. There were two minor complications (5.1%) within the first 30 days of surgery: Minimal anastomotic site leak (one patient) requiring replacement and prolongation of Foley′s drainage by 1 week and ileus (one patient). No patient had any cardiopulmonary or vascular complications in the post-operative period. The median duration of hospital stay was 3 days. The median duration of catheterization was 7 days. No patient had problem of bladder neck stenosis in the follow-up period. At 1 month, 3 months, 6 months and 1 year of follow-up, 66.7% (n = 26), 74.3% (n = 29), 87.9% (n = 34) and 94.8% (n = 37), respectively, were continent. Conclusions: Robotic surgery is safe and feasible in a select group of elderly patients. It has acceptable and minimal perioperative complications along with good continence outcome.
650		4	\|a Continence
650		4	\|a elderly men
650		4	\|a prostate cancer
650		4	\|a robotic prostatectomy
650		4	\|a robotic surgery
653		0	\|a Diseases of the genitourinary system. Urology
700	0		\|a Narmada P Gupta \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Emmanuel E Akpo \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Anand Kumar \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i In \|t Indian Journal of Urology \|d Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2017 \|g 31(2015), 3, Seite 229-233 \|w (DE-627)508330939 \|w (DE-600)2223236-9 \|x 19983824 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:31 \|g year:2015 \|g number:3 \|g pages:229-233
856	4	0	\|u https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-1591.159622 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://doaj.org/article/6f973b15db064343b96fc8641d146283 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u http://www.indianjurol.com/article.asp?issn=0970-1591;year=2015;volume=31;issue=3;spage=229;epage=233;aulast=Yadav \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/0970-1591 \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/1998-3824 \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_DOAJ
912			\|a GBV_ILN_11
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_150
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2003
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2005
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2106
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2232
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 31 \|j 2015 \|e 3 \|h 229-233

Indexfelder

author_variant	r y ry n p g npg e e a eea a k ak
matchkey_str	article:19983824:2015----::eiprtvadotnneucmsfooirdclrsaetmiedrynin
hierarchy_sort_str	2015
callnumber-subject-code	RC
publishDate	2015
allfields	10.4103/0970-1591.159622 doi (DE-627)DOAJ015856836 (DE-599)DOAJ6f973b15db064343b96fc8641d146283 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RC870-923 Rajiv Yadav verfasserin aut Perioperative and continence outcomes of robotic radical prostatectomy in elderly Indian men (≥70 years): A sub-group analysis 2015 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Introduction: Many healthy elderly Indian men seek surgical treatment for localized prostate cancer. Quite often, radical surgery is not offered to the patients over 70 years of age due to the perception of increased side-effects and complications. We have previously reported our results of robotic radical prostatectomy in a study comprising 150 Indian patients, where almost a quarter of patients were elderly. This subgroup analysis was therefore focused on evaluating perioperative and continence outcomes in elderly men (≥70 years) with localized prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: Between April 2010 and August 2013, 153 men had robot-assisted radical prostatectomy performed by two surgeons. Of the 150 men analyzed, 39 (26%) were aged ≥70 years. All patients underwent robotic prostatectomy using a 4 arm da Vinci surgical system. Pre-operative, intraoperative and post-operative parameters were studied. Check cystogram was performed in all patients prior to catheter removal. Complications were categorized using the Clavien-Dindo classification system. Continence was defined as use of "no pad" or security liner only. All data were recorded prospectively and analyzed using SPSS version 20. Results: There were no significant intraoperative or perioperative complications in this group. Median blood loss during surgery was 150 mL. None of the patient required blood transfusion. There were two minor complications (5.1%) within the first 30 days of surgery: Minimal anastomotic site leak (one patient) requiring replacement and prolongation of Foley′s drainage by 1 week and ileus (one patient). No patient had any cardiopulmonary or vascular complications in the post-operative period. The median duration of hospital stay was 3 days. The median duration of catheterization was 7 days. No patient had problem of bladder neck stenosis in the follow-up period. At 1 month, 3 months, 6 months and 1 year of follow-up, 66.7% (n = 26), 74.3% (n = 29), 87.9% (n = 34) and 94.8% (n = 37), respectively, were continent. Conclusions: Robotic surgery is safe and feasible in a select group of elderly patients. It has acceptable and minimal perioperative complications along with good continence outcome. Continence elderly men prostate cancer robotic prostatectomy robotic surgery Diseases of the genitourinary system. Urology Narmada P Gupta verfasserin aut Emmanuel E Akpo verfasserin aut Anand Kumar verfasserin aut In Indian Journal of Urology Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2017 31(2015), 3, Seite 229-233 (DE-627)508330939 (DE-600)2223236-9 19983824 nnns volume:31 year:2015 number:3 pages:229-233 https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-1591.159622 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/6f973b15db064343b96fc8641d146283 kostenfrei http://www.indianjurol.com/article.asp?issn=0970-1591;year=2015;volume=31;issue=3;spage=229;epage=233;aulast=Yadav kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/0970-1591 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1998-3824 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_150 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2106 GBV_ILN_2232 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 31 2015 3 229-233
spelling	10.4103/0970-1591.159622 doi (DE-627)DOAJ015856836 (DE-599)DOAJ6f973b15db064343b96fc8641d146283 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RC870-923 Rajiv Yadav verfasserin aut Perioperative and continence outcomes of robotic radical prostatectomy in elderly Indian men (≥70 years): A sub-group analysis 2015 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Introduction: Many healthy elderly Indian men seek surgical treatment for localized prostate cancer. Quite often, radical surgery is not offered to the patients over 70 years of age due to the perception of increased side-effects and complications. We have previously reported our results of robotic radical prostatectomy in a study comprising 150 Indian patients, where almost a quarter of patients were elderly. This subgroup analysis was therefore focused on evaluating perioperative and continence outcomes in elderly men (≥70 years) with localized prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: Between April 2010 and August 2013, 153 men had robot-assisted radical prostatectomy performed by two surgeons. Of the 150 men analyzed, 39 (26%) were aged ≥70 years. All patients underwent robotic prostatectomy using a 4 arm da Vinci surgical system. Pre-operative, intraoperative and post-operative parameters were studied. Check cystogram was performed in all patients prior to catheter removal. Complications were categorized using the Clavien-Dindo classification system. Continence was defined as use of "no pad" or security liner only. All data were recorded prospectively and analyzed using SPSS version 20. Results: There were no significant intraoperative or perioperative complications in this group. Median blood loss during surgery was 150 mL. None of the patient required blood transfusion. There were two minor complications (5.1%) within the first 30 days of surgery: Minimal anastomotic site leak (one patient) requiring replacement and prolongation of Foley′s drainage by 1 week and ileus (one patient). No patient had any cardiopulmonary or vascular complications in the post-operative period. The median duration of hospital stay was 3 days. The median duration of catheterization was 7 days. No patient had problem of bladder neck stenosis in the follow-up period. At 1 month, 3 months, 6 months and 1 year of follow-up, 66.7% (n = 26), 74.3% (n = 29), 87.9% (n = 34) and 94.8% (n = 37), respectively, were continent. Conclusions: Robotic surgery is safe and feasible in a select group of elderly patients. It has acceptable and minimal perioperative complications along with good continence outcome. Continence elderly men prostate cancer robotic prostatectomy robotic surgery Diseases of the genitourinary system. Urology Narmada P Gupta verfasserin aut Emmanuel E Akpo verfasserin aut Anand Kumar verfasserin aut In Indian Journal of Urology Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2017 31(2015), 3, Seite 229-233 (DE-627)508330939 (DE-600)2223236-9 19983824 nnns volume:31 year:2015 number:3 pages:229-233 https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-1591.159622 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/6f973b15db064343b96fc8641d146283 kostenfrei http://www.indianjurol.com/article.asp?issn=0970-1591;year=2015;volume=31;issue=3;spage=229;epage=233;aulast=Yadav kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/0970-1591 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1998-3824 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_150 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2106 GBV_ILN_2232 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 31 2015 3 229-233
allfields_unstemmed	10.4103/0970-1591.159622 doi (DE-627)DOAJ015856836 (DE-599)DOAJ6f973b15db064343b96fc8641d146283 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RC870-923 Rajiv Yadav verfasserin aut Perioperative and continence outcomes of robotic radical prostatectomy in elderly Indian men (≥70 years): A sub-group analysis 2015 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Introduction: Many healthy elderly Indian men seek surgical treatment for localized prostate cancer. Quite often, radical surgery is not offered to the patients over 70 years of age due to the perception of increased side-effects and complications. We have previously reported our results of robotic radical prostatectomy in a study comprising 150 Indian patients, where almost a quarter of patients were elderly. This subgroup analysis was therefore focused on evaluating perioperative and continence outcomes in elderly men (≥70 years) with localized prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: Between April 2010 and August 2013, 153 men had robot-assisted radical prostatectomy performed by two surgeons. Of the 150 men analyzed, 39 (26%) were aged ≥70 years. All patients underwent robotic prostatectomy using a 4 arm da Vinci surgical system. Pre-operative, intraoperative and post-operative parameters were studied. Check cystogram was performed in all patients prior to catheter removal. Complications were categorized using the Clavien-Dindo classification system. Continence was defined as use of "no pad" or security liner only. All data were recorded prospectively and analyzed using SPSS version 20. Results: There were no significant intraoperative or perioperative complications in this group. Median blood loss during surgery was 150 mL. None of the patient required blood transfusion. There were two minor complications (5.1%) within the first 30 days of surgery: Minimal anastomotic site leak (one patient) requiring replacement and prolongation of Foley′s drainage by 1 week and ileus (one patient). No patient had any cardiopulmonary or vascular complications in the post-operative period. The median duration of hospital stay was 3 days. The median duration of catheterization was 7 days. No patient had problem of bladder neck stenosis in the follow-up period. At 1 month, 3 months, 6 months and 1 year of follow-up, 66.7% (n = 26), 74.3% (n = 29), 87.9% (n = 34) and 94.8% (n = 37), respectively, were continent. Conclusions: Robotic surgery is safe and feasible in a select group of elderly patients. It has acceptable and minimal perioperative complications along with good continence outcome. Continence elderly men prostate cancer robotic prostatectomy robotic surgery Diseases of the genitourinary system. Urology Narmada P Gupta verfasserin aut Emmanuel E Akpo verfasserin aut Anand Kumar verfasserin aut In Indian Journal of Urology Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2017 31(2015), 3, Seite 229-233 (DE-627)508330939 (DE-600)2223236-9 19983824 nnns volume:31 year:2015 number:3 pages:229-233 https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-1591.159622 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/6f973b15db064343b96fc8641d146283 kostenfrei http://www.indianjurol.com/article.asp?issn=0970-1591;year=2015;volume=31;issue=3;spage=229;epage=233;aulast=Yadav kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/0970-1591 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1998-3824 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_150 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2106 GBV_ILN_2232 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 31 2015 3 229-233
allfieldsGer	10.4103/0970-1591.159622 doi (DE-627)DOAJ015856836 (DE-599)DOAJ6f973b15db064343b96fc8641d146283 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RC870-923 Rajiv Yadav verfasserin aut Perioperative and continence outcomes of robotic radical prostatectomy in elderly Indian men (≥70 years): A sub-group analysis 2015 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Introduction: Many healthy elderly Indian men seek surgical treatment for localized prostate cancer. Quite often, radical surgery is not offered to the patients over 70 years of age due to the perception of increased side-effects and complications. We have previously reported our results of robotic radical prostatectomy in a study comprising 150 Indian patients, where almost a quarter of patients were elderly. This subgroup analysis was therefore focused on evaluating perioperative and continence outcomes in elderly men (≥70 years) with localized prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: Between April 2010 and August 2013, 153 men had robot-assisted radical prostatectomy performed by two surgeons. Of the 150 men analyzed, 39 (26%) were aged ≥70 years. All patients underwent robotic prostatectomy using a 4 arm da Vinci surgical system. Pre-operative, intraoperative and post-operative parameters were studied. Check cystogram was performed in all patients prior to catheter removal. Complications were categorized using the Clavien-Dindo classification system. Continence was defined as use of "no pad" or security liner only. All data were recorded prospectively and analyzed using SPSS version 20. Results: There were no significant intraoperative or perioperative complications in this group. Median blood loss during surgery was 150 mL. None of the patient required blood transfusion. There were two minor complications (5.1%) within the first 30 days of surgery: Minimal anastomotic site leak (one patient) requiring replacement and prolongation of Foley′s drainage by 1 week and ileus (one patient). No patient had any cardiopulmonary or vascular complications in the post-operative period. The median duration of hospital stay was 3 days. The median duration of catheterization was 7 days. No patient had problem of bladder neck stenosis in the follow-up period. At 1 month, 3 months, 6 months and 1 year of follow-up, 66.7% (n = 26), 74.3% (n = 29), 87.9% (n = 34) and 94.8% (n = 37), respectively, were continent. Conclusions: Robotic surgery is safe and feasible in a select group of elderly patients. It has acceptable and minimal perioperative complications along with good continence outcome. Continence elderly men prostate cancer robotic prostatectomy robotic surgery Diseases of the genitourinary system. Urology Narmada P Gupta verfasserin aut Emmanuel E Akpo verfasserin aut Anand Kumar verfasserin aut In Indian Journal of Urology Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2017 31(2015), 3, Seite 229-233 (DE-627)508330939 (DE-600)2223236-9 19983824 nnns volume:31 year:2015 number:3 pages:229-233 https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-1591.159622 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/6f973b15db064343b96fc8641d146283 kostenfrei http://www.indianjurol.com/article.asp?issn=0970-1591;year=2015;volume=31;issue=3;spage=229;epage=233;aulast=Yadav kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/0970-1591 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1998-3824 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_150 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2106 GBV_ILN_2232 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 31 2015 3 229-233
allfieldsSound	10.4103/0970-1591.159622 doi (DE-627)DOAJ015856836 (DE-599)DOAJ6f973b15db064343b96fc8641d146283 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RC870-923 Rajiv Yadav verfasserin aut Perioperative and continence outcomes of robotic radical prostatectomy in elderly Indian men (≥70 years): A sub-group analysis 2015 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Introduction: Many healthy elderly Indian men seek surgical treatment for localized prostate cancer. Quite often, radical surgery is not offered to the patients over 70 years of age due to the perception of increased side-effects and complications. We have previously reported our results of robotic radical prostatectomy in a study comprising 150 Indian patients, where almost a quarter of patients were elderly. This subgroup analysis was therefore focused on evaluating perioperative and continence outcomes in elderly men (≥70 years) with localized prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: Between April 2010 and August 2013, 153 men had robot-assisted radical prostatectomy performed by two surgeons. Of the 150 men analyzed, 39 (26%) were aged ≥70 years. All patients underwent robotic prostatectomy using a 4 arm da Vinci surgical system. Pre-operative, intraoperative and post-operative parameters were studied. Check cystogram was performed in all patients prior to catheter removal. Complications were categorized using the Clavien-Dindo classification system. Continence was defined as use of "no pad" or security liner only. All data were recorded prospectively and analyzed using SPSS version 20. Results: There were no significant intraoperative or perioperative complications in this group. Median blood loss during surgery was 150 mL. None of the patient required blood transfusion. There were two minor complications (5.1%) within the first 30 days of surgery: Minimal anastomotic site leak (one patient) requiring replacement and prolongation of Foley′s drainage by 1 week and ileus (one patient). No patient had any cardiopulmonary or vascular complications in the post-operative period. The median duration of hospital stay was 3 days. The median duration of catheterization was 7 days. No patient had problem of bladder neck stenosis in the follow-up period. At 1 month, 3 months, 6 months and 1 year of follow-up, 66.7% (n = 26), 74.3% (n = 29), 87.9% (n = 34) and 94.8% (n = 37), respectively, were continent. Conclusions: Robotic surgery is safe and feasible in a select group of elderly patients. It has acceptable and minimal perioperative complications along with good continence outcome. Continence elderly men prostate cancer robotic prostatectomy robotic surgery Diseases of the genitourinary system. Urology Narmada P Gupta verfasserin aut Emmanuel E Akpo verfasserin aut Anand Kumar verfasserin aut In Indian Journal of Urology Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2017 31(2015), 3, Seite 229-233 (DE-627)508330939 (DE-600)2223236-9 19983824 nnns volume:31 year:2015 number:3 pages:229-233 https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-1591.159622 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/6f973b15db064343b96fc8641d146283 kostenfrei http://www.indianjurol.com/article.asp?issn=0970-1591;year=2015;volume=31;issue=3;spage=229;epage=233;aulast=Yadav kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/0970-1591 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1998-3824 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_150 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2106 GBV_ILN_2232 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 31 2015 3 229-233
language	English
source	In Indian Journal of Urology 31(2015), 3, Seite 229-233 volume:31 year:2015 number:3 pages:229-233
sourceStr	In Indian Journal of Urology 31(2015), 3, Seite 229-233 volume:31 year:2015 number:3 pages:229-233
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	Continence elderly men prostate cancer robotic prostatectomy robotic surgery Diseases of the genitourinary system. Urology
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	Indian Journal of Urology
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Rajiv Yadav @@aut@@ Narmada P Gupta @@aut@@ Emmanuel E Akpo @@aut@@ Anand Kumar @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2015-01-01T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	508330939
id	DOAJ015856836
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ015856836</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230310075608.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230226s2015 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.4103/0970-1591.159622</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ015856836</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ6f973b15db064343b96fc8641d146283</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">RC870-923</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Rajiv Yadav</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Perioperative and continence outcomes of robotic radical prostatectomy in elderly Indian men (≥70 years): A sub-group analysis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Introduction: Many healthy elderly Indian men seek surgical treatment for localized prostate cancer. Quite often, radical surgery is not offered to the patients over 70 years of age due to the perception of increased side-effects and complications. We have previously reported our results of robotic radical prostatectomy in a study comprising 150 Indian patients, where almost a quarter of patients were elderly. This subgroup analysis was therefore focused on evaluating perioperative and continence outcomes in elderly men (≥70 years) with localized prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: Between April 2010 and August 2013, 153 men had robot-assisted radical prostatectomy performed by two surgeons. Of the 150 men analyzed, 39 (26%) were aged ≥70 years. All patients underwent robotic prostatectomy using a 4 arm da Vinci surgical system. Pre-operative, intraoperative and post-operative parameters were studied. Check cystogram was performed in all patients prior to catheter removal. Complications were categorized using the Clavien-Dindo classification system. Continence was defined as use of "no pad" or security liner only. All data were recorded prospectively and analyzed using SPSS version 20. Results: There were no significant intraoperative or perioperative complications in this group. Median blood loss during surgery was 150 mL. None of the patient required blood transfusion. There were two minor complications (5.1%) within the first 30 days of surgery: Minimal anastomotic site leak (one patient) requiring replacement and prolongation of Foley′s drainage by 1 week and ileus (one patient). No patient had any cardiopulmonary or vascular complications in the post-operative period. The median duration of hospital stay was 3 days. The median duration of catheterization was 7 days. No patient had problem of bladder neck stenosis in the follow-up period. At 1 month, 3 months, 6 months and 1 year of follow-up, 66.7% (n = 26), 74.3% (n = 29), 87.9% (n = 34) and 94.8% (n = 37), respectively, were continent. Conclusions: Robotic surgery is safe and feasible in a select group of elderly patients. It has acceptable and minimal perioperative complications along with good continence outcome.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Continence</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">elderly men</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">prostate cancer</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">robotic prostatectomy</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">robotic surgery</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Diseases of the genitourinary system. Urology</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Narmada P Gupta</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Emmanuel E Akpo</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Anand Kumar</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Indian Journal of Urology</subfield><subfield code="d">Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2017</subfield><subfield code="g">31(2015), 3, Seite 229-233</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)508330939</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2223236-9</subfield><subfield code="x">19983824</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:31</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2015</subfield><subfield code="g">number:3</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:229-233</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-1591.159622</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/6f973b15db064343b96fc8641d146283</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://www.indianjurol.com/article.asp?issn=0970-1591;year=2015;volume=31;issue=3;spage=229;epage=233;aulast=Yadav</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/0970-1591</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1998-3824</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_150</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2106</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2232</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">31</subfield><subfield code="j">2015</subfield><subfield code="e">3</subfield><subfield code="h">229-233</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
callnumber-first	R - Medicine
author	Rajiv Yadav
spellingShingle	Rajiv Yadav misc RC870-923 misc Continence misc elderly men misc prostate cancer misc robotic prostatectomy misc robotic surgery misc Diseases of the genitourinary system. Urology Perioperative and continence outcomes of robotic radical prostatectomy in elderly Indian men (≥70 years): A sub-group analysis
authorStr	Rajiv Yadav
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)508330939
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut
collection	DOAJ
remote_str	true
callnumber-label	RC870-923
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	19983824
topic_title	RC870-923 Perioperative and continence outcomes of robotic radical prostatectomy in elderly Indian men (≥70 years): A sub-group analysis Continence elderly men prostate cancer robotic prostatectomy robotic surgery
topic	misc RC870-923 misc Continence misc elderly men misc prostate cancer misc robotic prostatectomy misc robotic surgery misc Diseases of the genitourinary system. Urology
topic_unstemmed	misc RC870-923 misc Continence misc elderly men misc prostate cancer misc robotic prostatectomy misc robotic surgery misc Diseases of the genitourinary system. Urology
topic_browse	misc RC870-923 misc Continence misc elderly men misc prostate cancer misc robotic prostatectomy misc robotic surgery misc Diseases of the genitourinary system. Urology
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	Indian Journal of Urology
hierarchy_parent_id	508330939
hierarchy_top_title	Indian Journal of Urology
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)508330939 (DE-600)2223236-9
title	Perioperative and continence outcomes of robotic radical prostatectomy in elderly Indian men (≥70 years): A sub-group analysis
ctrlnum	(DE-627)DOAJ015856836 (DE-599)DOAJ6f973b15db064343b96fc8641d146283
title_full	Perioperative and continence outcomes of robotic radical prostatectomy in elderly Indian men (≥70 years): A sub-group analysis
author_sort	Rajiv Yadav
journal	Indian Journal of Urology
journalStr	Indian Journal of Urology
callnumber-first-code	R
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2015
contenttype_str_mv	txt
container_start_page	229
author_browse	Rajiv Yadav Narmada P Gupta Emmanuel E Akpo Anand Kumar
container_volume	31
class	RC870-923
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Rajiv Yadav
doi_str_mv	10.4103/0970-1591.159622
author2-role	verfasserin
title_sort	perioperative and continence outcomes of robotic radical prostatectomy in elderly indian men (≥70 years): a sub-group analysis
callnumber	RC870-923
title_auth	Perioperative and continence outcomes of robotic radical prostatectomy in elderly Indian men (≥70 years): A sub-group analysis
abstract	Introduction: Many healthy elderly Indian men seek surgical treatment for localized prostate cancer. Quite often, radical surgery is not offered to the patients over 70 years of age due to the perception of increased side-effects and complications. We have previously reported our results of robotic radical prostatectomy in a study comprising 150 Indian patients, where almost a quarter of patients were elderly. This subgroup analysis was therefore focused on evaluating perioperative and continence outcomes in elderly men (≥70 years) with localized prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: Between April 2010 and August 2013, 153 men had robot-assisted radical prostatectomy performed by two surgeons. Of the 150 men analyzed, 39 (26%) were aged ≥70 years. All patients underwent robotic prostatectomy using a 4 arm da Vinci surgical system. Pre-operative, intraoperative and post-operative parameters were studied. Check cystogram was performed in all patients prior to catheter removal. Complications were categorized using the Clavien-Dindo classification system. Continence was defined as use of "no pad" or security liner only. All data were recorded prospectively and analyzed using SPSS version 20. Results: There were no significant intraoperative or perioperative complications in this group. Median blood loss during surgery was 150 mL. None of the patient required blood transfusion. There were two minor complications (5.1%) within the first 30 days of surgery: Minimal anastomotic site leak (one patient) requiring replacement and prolongation of Foley′s drainage by 1 week and ileus (one patient). No patient had any cardiopulmonary or vascular complications in the post-operative period. The median duration of hospital stay was 3 days. The median duration of catheterization was 7 days. No patient had problem of bladder neck stenosis in the follow-up period. At 1 month, 3 months, 6 months and 1 year of follow-up, 66.7% (n = 26), 74.3% (n = 29), 87.9% (n = 34) and 94.8% (n = 37), respectively, were continent. Conclusions: Robotic surgery is safe and feasible in a select group of elderly patients. It has acceptable and minimal perioperative complications along with good continence outcome.
abstractGer	Introduction: Many healthy elderly Indian men seek surgical treatment for localized prostate cancer. Quite often, radical surgery is not offered to the patients over 70 years of age due to the perception of increased side-effects and complications. We have previously reported our results of robotic radical prostatectomy in a study comprising 150 Indian patients, where almost a quarter of patients were elderly. This subgroup analysis was therefore focused on evaluating perioperative and continence outcomes in elderly men (≥70 years) with localized prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: Between April 2010 and August 2013, 153 men had robot-assisted radical prostatectomy performed by two surgeons. Of the 150 men analyzed, 39 (26%) were aged ≥70 years. All patients underwent robotic prostatectomy using a 4 arm da Vinci surgical system. Pre-operative, intraoperative and post-operative parameters were studied. Check cystogram was performed in all patients prior to catheter removal. Complications were categorized using the Clavien-Dindo classification system. Continence was defined as use of "no pad" or security liner only. All data were recorded prospectively and analyzed using SPSS version 20. Results: There were no significant intraoperative or perioperative complications in this group. Median blood loss during surgery was 150 mL. None of the patient required blood transfusion. There were two minor complications (5.1%) within the first 30 days of surgery: Minimal anastomotic site leak (one patient) requiring replacement and prolongation of Foley′s drainage by 1 week and ileus (one patient). No patient had any cardiopulmonary or vascular complications in the post-operative period. The median duration of hospital stay was 3 days. The median duration of catheterization was 7 days. No patient had problem of bladder neck stenosis in the follow-up period. At 1 month, 3 months, 6 months and 1 year of follow-up, 66.7% (n = 26), 74.3% (n = 29), 87.9% (n = 34) and 94.8% (n = 37), respectively, were continent. Conclusions: Robotic surgery is safe and feasible in a select group of elderly patients. It has acceptable and minimal perioperative complications along with good continence outcome.
abstract_unstemmed	Introduction: Many healthy elderly Indian men seek surgical treatment for localized prostate cancer. Quite often, radical surgery is not offered to the patients over 70 years of age due to the perception of increased side-effects and complications. We have previously reported our results of robotic radical prostatectomy in a study comprising 150 Indian patients, where almost a quarter of patients were elderly. This subgroup analysis was therefore focused on evaluating perioperative and continence outcomes in elderly men (≥70 years) with localized prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: Between April 2010 and August 2013, 153 men had robot-assisted radical prostatectomy performed by two surgeons. Of the 150 men analyzed, 39 (26%) were aged ≥70 years. All patients underwent robotic prostatectomy using a 4 arm da Vinci surgical system. Pre-operative, intraoperative and post-operative parameters were studied. Check cystogram was performed in all patients prior to catheter removal. Complications were categorized using the Clavien-Dindo classification system. Continence was defined as use of "no pad" or security liner only. All data were recorded prospectively and analyzed using SPSS version 20. Results: There were no significant intraoperative or perioperative complications in this group. Median blood loss during surgery was 150 mL. None of the patient required blood transfusion. There were two minor complications (5.1%) within the first 30 days of surgery: Minimal anastomotic site leak (one patient) requiring replacement and prolongation of Foley′s drainage by 1 week and ileus (one patient). No patient had any cardiopulmonary or vascular complications in the post-operative period. The median duration of hospital stay was 3 days. The median duration of catheterization was 7 days. No patient had problem of bladder neck stenosis in the follow-up period. At 1 month, 3 months, 6 months and 1 year of follow-up, 66.7% (n = 26), 74.3% (n = 29), 87.9% (n = 34) and 94.8% (n = 37), respectively, were continent. Conclusions: Robotic surgery is safe and feasible in a select group of elderly patients. It has acceptable and minimal perioperative complications along with good continence outcome.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_150 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2106 GBV_ILN_2232 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	3
title_short	Perioperative and continence outcomes of robotic radical prostatectomy in elderly Indian men (≥70 years): A sub-group analysis
url	https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-1591.159622 https://doaj.org/article/6f973b15db064343b96fc8641d146283 http://www.indianjurol.com/article.asp?issn=0970-1591;year=2015;volume=31;issue=3;spage=229;epage=233;aulast=Yadav https://doaj.org/toc/0970-1591 https://doaj.org/toc/1998-3824
remote_bool	true
author2	Narmada P Gupta Emmanuel E Akpo Anand Kumar
author2Str	Narmada P Gupta Emmanuel E Akpo Anand Kumar
ppnlink	508330939
callnumber-subject	RC - Internal Medicine
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.4103/0970-1591.159622
callnumber-a	RC870-923
up_date	2024-07-03T17:30:41.776Z
_version_	1803579914221256705
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ015856836</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230310075608.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230226s2015 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.4103/0970-1591.159622</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ015856836</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ6f973b15db064343b96fc8641d146283</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">RC870-923</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Rajiv Yadav</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Perioperative and continence outcomes of robotic radical prostatectomy in elderly Indian men (≥70 years): A sub-group analysis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Introduction: Many healthy elderly Indian men seek surgical treatment for localized prostate cancer. Quite often, radical surgery is not offered to the patients over 70 years of age due to the perception of increased side-effects and complications. We have previously reported our results of robotic radical prostatectomy in a study comprising 150 Indian patients, where almost a quarter of patients were elderly. This subgroup analysis was therefore focused on evaluating perioperative and continence outcomes in elderly men (≥70 years) with localized prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: Between April 2010 and August 2013, 153 men had robot-assisted radical prostatectomy performed by two surgeons. Of the 150 men analyzed, 39 (26%) were aged ≥70 years. All patients underwent robotic prostatectomy using a 4 arm da Vinci surgical system. Pre-operative, intraoperative and post-operative parameters were studied. Check cystogram was performed in all patients prior to catheter removal. Complications were categorized using the Clavien-Dindo classification system. Continence was defined as use of "no pad" or security liner only. All data were recorded prospectively and analyzed using SPSS version 20. Results: There were no significant intraoperative or perioperative complications in this group. Median blood loss during surgery was 150 mL. None of the patient required blood transfusion. There were two minor complications (5.1%) within the first 30 days of surgery: Minimal anastomotic site leak (one patient) requiring replacement and prolongation of Foley′s drainage by 1 week and ileus (one patient). No patient had any cardiopulmonary or vascular complications in the post-operative period. The median duration of hospital stay was 3 days. The median duration of catheterization was 7 days. No patient had problem of bladder neck stenosis in the follow-up period. At 1 month, 3 months, 6 months and 1 year of follow-up, 66.7% (n = 26), 74.3% (n = 29), 87.9% (n = 34) and 94.8% (n = 37), respectively, were continent. Conclusions: Robotic surgery is safe and feasible in a select group of elderly patients. It has acceptable and minimal perioperative complications along with good continence outcome.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Continence</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">elderly men</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">prostate cancer</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">robotic prostatectomy</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">robotic surgery</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Diseases of the genitourinary system. Urology</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Narmada P Gupta</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Emmanuel E Akpo</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Anand Kumar</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Indian Journal of Urology</subfield><subfield code="d">Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2017</subfield><subfield code="g">31(2015), 3, Seite 229-233</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)508330939</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2223236-9</subfield><subfield code="x">19983824</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:31</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2015</subfield><subfield code="g">number:3</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:229-233</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-1591.159622</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/6f973b15db064343b96fc8641d146283</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://www.indianjurol.com/article.asp?issn=0970-1591;year=2015;volume=31;issue=3;spage=229;epage=233;aulast=Yadav</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/0970-1591</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1998-3824</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_150</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2106</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2232</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">31</subfield><subfield code="j">2015</subfield><subfield code="e">3</subfield><subfield code="h">229-233</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.401513

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Perioperative and continence outcomes of robotic radical prostatectomy in elderly Indian men (≥70 years): A sub-group analysis

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?