↓ Skip to main content

New steps of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy using the extraperitoneal approach: a propensity-score matched comparison between extraperitoneal and transperitoneal approach in Japanese patients

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Urology, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
51 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
New steps of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy using the extraperitoneal approach: a propensity-score matched comparison between extraperitoneal and transperitoneal approach in Japanese patients
Published in
BMC Urology, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12894-017-0298-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Satoshi Kurokawa, Yukihiro Umemoto, Kentaro Mizuno, Atsushi Okada, Akihiro Nakane, Hidenori Nishio, Shuzo Hamamoto, Ryosuke Ando, Noriyasu Kawai, Keiichi Tozawa, Yutaro Hayashi, Takahiro Yasui

Abstract

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is commonly performed using the transperitoneal (TP) approach with six trocars over an 8-cm distance in the steep Trendelenburg position. In this study, we investigated the feasibility and the benefit of using the extraperitoneal (EP) approach with six trocars over a 4-cm distance in a flat or 5° Trendelenburg position. We also introduced four new steps to the surgical procedure and compared the surgical results and complications between the EP and TP approach using propensity score matching. Between August 2012 and August 2016, 200 consecutive patients without any physical restrictions underwent RARP with the EP approach in a less than 5° Trendelenburg position, and 428 consecutive patients underwent RARP with the TP approach in a steep Trendelenburg position. Four new steps to RARP using the EP approach were developed: 1) arranging six trocars; 2) creating the EP space using laparoscopic forceps; 3) holding the separated prostate in the EP space outside the robotic view; and 4) preventing a postoperative inguinal hernia. Clinicopathological results and complications were compared between the EP and TP approaches using propensity score matching. Propensity scores were calculated for each patient using multivariate logistic regression based on the preoperative covariates. All 200 patients safely underwent RARP using the EP approach. The mean volume of estimated blood loss and duration of indwelling urethral catheter use were significantly lower with the EP approach than the TP approach (139.9 vs 184.9 mL, p = 0.03 and 5.6 vs 7.7 days, p < 0.01, respectively). No significant differences in the positive surgical margin were observed. None of the patients developed an inguinal hernia postoperatively after we introduced this technique. The EP approach to RARP was safely performed regardless of patient physique or contraindications to a steep Trendelenburg position. Our method, which involved using the EP approach to perform RARP, can decrease the amount of perioperative blood loss, the duration of indwelling urethral catheter use, and the incidence of postoperative inguinal hernia development.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Unspecified 4 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 8%
Student > Master 4 8%
Other 14 27%
Unknown 16 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 33%
Unspecified 4 8%
Engineering 2 4%
Computer Science 2 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 21 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 November 2017.
All research outputs
#17,920,654
of 23,008,860 outputs
Outputs from BMC Urology
#492
of 754 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#305,426
of 437,733 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Urology
#10
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,008,860 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 754 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 437,733 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.