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 Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The surgical treatment of prostate cancer (PCa) had as its initial milestone the irst prostatectomy, performed by H.H. Young at the Johns Hopkins Hospital, in 1904 [1], however, the procedure only reached a fundamental role after 1982, based on a better understanding and description of the male pelvic anatomy, by Walsh [2-6] and other [7-11]. Subsequently, minimally invasive approaches emerged: laparoscopic prostatectomy (1992) [12] and robotassisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) (2000) [13], which modi ied and optimized the execution of key surgical steps of this procedure, such as bladder neck preservation, nerve-sparing dissection, and prostate apex management [14]. Nevertheless, there is a continuous debate about the bene its offered by minimally invasive approaches and their superiority over the conventional open surgery, in order to justify additional costs and the spread of those [15]. Some superior results have already been demonstrated in terms of recovery time, return to normal activities and shorter hospitalization, as well as, less bleeding and postoperative pain; however, with equivalent oncologic outcomes [16].

archives of cancer science and therapy

“Maximum Preservation Radical Prostatectomy”: Oncological, functional and other contemporary aspects of Retzius Sparing Robotic Assisted Radical Prostatectomy