English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Although it has clearly been documented that there is a trend toward robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RARP) being the choice of treatment for localized prostate cancer, laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) is still a viable option for prostate cancer patients in Asia.1 In 2009, 10.5% (13/123) prostate cancer patients received LRP in all cases of radical prostatectomy at one of Taiwan's referral medical centers.2 Transperitoneal (TP) RARP and transperitoneal LRP (TLRP) provide a largeworking space and clear anatomic exposure; these are adopted by the vast majority of surgeons.3,4 Which approach is better when comparing the TP with the retroperitoneal route? Randomized controlled trials are needed to determine this. A meta-analysis of 942 cases from nine controlled trials, including 492 cases of TLRP and 450 cases of extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (ELRP), was analyzed.3 It was concluded that ELRP is similar to TLRPwith regard to operation time, blood loss, and postoperative hospital stay, but shorter postoperative intestinal function recovery was found with ELRP.3 For the comparison of TP and extraperitoneal (EP) RARP, six control studies were reviewed.4 A total of 842 cases were enrolled, 530 patients for EP-RARP and 312 for TP-RARP. The findings suggested that perioperative parameters, including operation time and hospital stay, may be more favorable for EP-RARP than for TP-RARP.4 The oncologic outcome of margin positivity was similar.4 Ploussard et al5 reported on a comparison 205 cases of ELRP and 83 cases of EP RARP. Operating room time was not significantly different between the two groups (223.6 minutes vs. 215.7 minutes in ELRP vs. EP-RARP groups, p 1⁄4 0.23).5 The mean patient setup was longer in the EP-RARP group (33.2 minutes vs. 24.0 minutes, p < 0.01).5 The mean operative time was significantly shorter in the RARP group (145.6 minutes vs. 164.7 minutes, p < 0.01).5 Hospital stay, bladder catheterization, and complication rate were similar between the two groups.5 In this issue a small-scale study retrospectively compared 71 cases of ELRP and 22 cases of TLRP performed by a single surgeon from 2006 to 2012.6 It concluded that ELRP has a shorter operation time (184 minutes vs. 285 minutes, p < 0.05) and less blood loss (183 mL vs. 276 mL, p < 0.05) than TLRP.6 The case number of both groups was uneven, and there were only 22 cases in the TLRP group. The surgeon performed, on average, four cases of TLRP per year, and this means that there is still a learning curve to be considered. However, the operator favored ELRP and performed more cases using the four-trocar approach.6 The operator (V.C. Lin) described this method with the following key steps for ELRP: after the anterior bladder neck was open, an Endo Close

Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is still a viable option for localized prostate cancer in Asians