595 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15879765)
1. Contemporary appraisal of radical perineal prostatectomy.
Janoff DM; Parra RO
J Urol; 2005 Jun; 173(6):1863-70. PubMed ID: 15879765
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Outcome and complications of radical prostatectomy in patients with PSA <10 ng/ml: comparison between the retropubic, perineal and laparoscopic approach.
Salomon L; Levrel O; Anastasiadis AG; Saint F; de La Taille A; Cicco A; Vordos D; Hoznek A; Chopin D; Abbou CC
Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis; 2002; 5(4):285-90. PubMed ID: 12627213
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. [Stool behaviour and local pain after radical perineal and retroperitoneal prostatectomy].
Mirzapour K; de Geeter P; Löhmer H; Albers P
Aktuelle Urol; 2011 Nov; 42(6):368-73. PubMed ID: 22090372
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Cost comparison of radical retropubic and radical perineal prostatectomy: single institution experience.
Silverstein AD; Weizer AZ; Dowell JM; Auge BK; Paulson DF; Dahm P
Urology; 2004 Apr; 63(4):746-50. PubMed ID: 15072893
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Seminal vesicle-sparing perineal radical prostatectomy improves early functional results in patients with low-risk prostate cancer.
Albers P; Schäfers S; Löhmer H; de Geeter P
BJU Int; 2007 Nov; 100(5):1050-4. PubMed ID: 17760889
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The anatomic radical perineal prostatectomy: an outcomes-based evolution.
Harris MJ
Eur Urol; 2007 Jul; 52(1):81-8. PubMed ID: 17084506
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Laparoscopic pelvic lymph node dissection, laparoscopically assisted seminal vesicle mobilization, and total perineal prostatectomy versus radical retropubic prostatectomy for prostate cancer.
Teichman JM; Reddy PK; Hulbert JC
Urology; 1995 May; 45(5):823-30. PubMed ID: 7538244
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Clinical comparative evaluation of radical retropubic and perineal prostatectomy approaches for prostate cancer.
Zuo W; Hiraoka Y
Hinyokika Kiyo; 2003 Jan; 49(1):11-6. PubMed ID: 12629774
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Financial comparative analysis of minimally invasive surgery to open surgery for localized prostate cancer: a single-institution experience.
Mouraviev V; Nosnik I; Sun L; Robertson CN; Walther P; Albala D; Moul JW; Polascik TJ
Urology; 2007 Feb; 69(2):311-4. PubMed ID: 17320670
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Prostate cancer disease-free survival after radical retropubic prostatectomy in patients older than 70 years compared to younger cohorts.
Malaeb BS; Rashid HH; Lotan Y; Khoddami SM; Shariat SF; Sagalowsky AI; McConnell JD; Roehrborn CG; Koeneman KS
Urol Oncol; 2007; 25(4):291-7. PubMed ID: 17628294
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Stage D1 (T1-3, N1-3, M0) prostate cancer: a case-controlled comparison of conservative treatment versus radical prostatectomy.
Cadeddu JA; Partin AW; Epstein JI; Walsh PC
Urology; 1997 Aug; 50(2):251-5. PubMed ID: 9255297
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Radical perineal prostatectomy and simultaneous extended pelvic lymph node dissection via the same incision.
Keller H; Lehmann J; Beier J
Eur Urol; 2007 Aug; 52(2):384-8. PubMed ID: 17084507
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Lymphovascular invasion is an independent prognostic factor in prostatic adenocarcinoma.
Cheng L; Jones TD; Lin H; Eble JN; Zeng G; Carr MD; Koch MO
J Urol; 2005 Dec; 174(6):2181-5. PubMed ID: 16280760
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Importance of tumor location in patients with high preoperative prostate specific antigen levels (greater than 20 ng/ml) treated with radical prostatectomy.
Magheli A; Rais-Bahrami S; Peck HJ; Walsh PC; Epstein JI; Trock BJ; Gonzalgo ML
J Urol; 2007 Oct; 178(4 Pt 1):1311-5. PubMed ID: 17698095
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Patterns of care for radical prostatectomy in the United States from 2003 to 2005.
Hu JC; Hevelone ND; Ferreira MD; Lipsitz SR; Choueiri TK; Sanda MG; Earle CC
J Urol; 2008 Nov; 180(5):1969-74. PubMed ID: 18801512
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Radical prostatectomy: a single surgeon comparison of retropubic, perineal, and robotic approaches.
Boris RS; Kaul SA; Sarle RC; Stricker HJ
Can J Urol; 2007 Jun; 14(3):3566-70. PubMed ID: 17594747
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Current results and patient selection for nerve-sparing radical retropubic prostatectomy.
Steiner MS
Semin Urol Oncol; 1995 Aug; 13(3):204-14. PubMed ID: 8521134
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Oncological and functional results of antegrade radical retropubic prostatectomy for the treatment of clinically localised prostate cancer.
Carini M; Masieri L; Minervini A; Lapini A; Serni S
Eur Urol; 2008 Mar; 53(3):554-61. PubMed ID: 17683854
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Long-term outcomes of open radical retropubic prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer in the prostate-specific antigen era.
Dorin RP; Daneshmand S; Lassoff MA; Cai J; Skinner DG; Lieskovsky G
Urology; 2012 Mar; 79(3):626-31. PubMed ID: 22245303
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Long-term outcome after radical prostatectomy for patients with lymph node positive prostate cancer in the prostate specific antigen era.
Boorjian SA; Thompson RH; Siddiqui S; Bagniewski S; Bergstralh EJ; Karnes RJ; Frank I; Blute ML
J Urol; 2007 Sep; 178(3 Pt 1):864-70; discussion 870-1. PubMed ID: 17631342
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
