These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in obese patients.
    Author: Boczko J, Madeb R, Golijanin D, Erturk E, Mathe M, Patel HR, Joseph JV.
    Journal: Can J Urol; 2006 Aug; 13(4):3169-73. PubMed ID: 16952325.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: Few centers perform extraperitoneal robot assisted radical prostatectomy. The average patient weight is increasing to the mildly obese. Little is known as to the difficulty-impact, obesity may have on robot-assisted extraperitoneal prostatectomy (RAP). We assess our own experience with obese patients undergoing RAP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Information on 375 consecutive patients undergoing robot-assisted extraperitoneal prostatectomy by a single surgeon was gathered. Obesity is defined as having a body mass index (BMI) greater than 30 kg/m2. Patients with BMI >/= 30 were compared to those with BMI < 30. Specific comparators between the groups were: age, total operating time, estimated blood loss, total prostate specific antigen (PSA), specimen weight, pathological stage, grade and margin, complications, and functional outcomes. RESULTS: Sixty-seven men were identified as obese. When comparing the two groups, no statistically significant difference (p > .05) was noted in operative time (229 versus 217 min), blood loss (205 versus 175 ml), PSA, clinical and pathologic stages, specimen weight, and complications. 15% of non-obese patients had a positive margin compared to 12% of obese patients (p > .05). The 6-month continence rate in patients with a BMI >/= 30 was 92% versus 97% in patients with a BMI < 30. CONCLUSIONS: The extraperitoneal approach to performing a robot-assisted prostatectomy is not associated with increased morbidity in the obese patient. There were no statistically significant differences noted in oncological or functional outcomes between the two groups.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]