Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • News & Views
  • Published:

Prostate cancer

The challenge of comparing open and laparoscopic surgery

A recent study using claims data to compare open retropubic with minimally invasive prostatectomy has revealed higher rates of genitourinary complications, incontinence and erectile dysfunction after the laparoscopic procedure. However, there are a number of inherent problems associated with the use of claims-based diagnoses for the evaluation of surgical techniques.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Walsh, P. C. 2008 Whitmore Lecture: Radical prostatectomy—where we were and where we are going. Urol. Oncol. 27, 246–250 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Montie, J. E. & Smith, J. A. Whitmoreisms: memorable quotes from Willet F. Whitmore, Jr, M. D. Urology 63, 207–209 (2004).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Walsh, P. C. Anatomic radical prostatectomy: evolution of the surgical technique. J. Urol. 160, 2418–2424 (1998).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Abbou, C. C. et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with a remote controlled robot. J. Urol. 165, 1964–1966 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ficarra, V. et al. Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Eur. Urol. 55, 1037–1063 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cropper, C. M. The robot is in—and ready to operate. Business Week 110–112 (14 Mar 2005).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Box, G. N. & Ahlering, T. E. Robotic radical prostatectomy: long-term outcomes. Curr. Opin. Urol. 18, 173–179 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hu, J. C., Wang, Q., Pashos, C. L., Lipsitz, S. R. & Keating, N. L. Utilization and outcomes of minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. J. Clin. Oncol. 26, 2278–2284 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hu, J. C. et al. Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy. JAMA 302, 1557–1564 (2009).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Savage, C. J. & Vickers, A. J. Low annual caseloads of United States surgeons conducting radical prostatectomy. J. Urol. 182, 2677–2679 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark S. Litwin.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chamie, K., Litwin, M. The challenge of comparing open and laparoscopic surgery. Nat Rev Urol 7, 121–122 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2010.21

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2010.21

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing: Cancer

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Cancer newsletter — what matters in cancer research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get what matters in cancer research, free to your inbox weekly. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Cancer