Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11434/1217
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorMoon, Daniel-
dc.contributor.otherHandmer, Marcus-
dc.contributor.otherChabert, Charles-
dc.contributor.otherCohen, Ronald-
dc.contributor.otherGianduzzo, Troy-
dc.contributor.otherKearns, Paul-
dc.contributor.otherOoi, Jason-
dc.contributor.otherShannon, Tom-
dc.contributor.otherSofield, David-
dc.contributor.otherTan, Andrew-
dc.contributor.otherLouie-Johnsun, Mark-
dc.date.accessioned2017-09-06T03:02:41Z-
dc.date.available2017-09-06T03:02:41Z-
dc.date.issued2017-05-
dc.identifier.citationANZ J Surg. 2017 May 16en_US
dc.identifier.issn1445-2197en_US
dc.identifier.issn1445-1443en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11434/1217-
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: International estimates of the laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) learning curve extend to as many as 1000 cases, but is unknown for Fellowship-trained Australian surgeons. METHODS: Prospectively collected data from nine Australian surgeons who performed 2943 consecutive LRP cases was retrospectively reviewed. Their combined initial 100 cases (F100, n = 900) were compared to their second 100 cases (S100, n = 782) with two of nine surgeons completing fewer than 200 cases. RESULTS: The mean age (61.1 versus 61.1 years) and prostate specific antigen (7.4 versus 7.8 ng/mL) were similar between F100 and S100. D'Amico's high-, intermediate- and low-risk cases were 15, 59 and 26% for the F100 versus 20, 59 and 21% for the S100, respectively. Blood transfusions (2.4 versus 0.8%), mean blood loss (413 versus 378 mL), mean operating time (193 versus 163 min) and length of stay (2.7 versus 2.4 days) were all lower in the S100. Histopathology was organ confined (pT2) in 76% of F100 and 71% of S100. Positive surgical margin (PSM) rate was 18.4% in F100 versus 17.5% in the S100 (P = 0.62). F100 and S100 PSM rates by pathological stage were similar with pT2 PSM 12.2 versus 9.5% (P = 0.13), pT3a PSM 34.8 versus 40.5% (P = 0.29) and pT3b PSM 52.9 versus 36.4% (P = 0.14). CONCLUSION: There was no significant improvement in PSM rate between F100 and S100 cases. Perioperative outcomes were acceptable in F100 and further improved with experience in S100. Mentoring can minimize the LRP learning curve, and it remains a valid minimally invasive surgical treatment for prostate cancer in Australia even in early practice.en_US
dc.publisherWiley Online Libraryen_US
dc.subjectLaparoscopic Radical Prostatectomyen_US
dc.subjectLRPen_US
dc.subjectLaparoscopic Surgeryen_US
dc.subjectProstatectomyen_US
dc.subjectLearning Curveen_US
dc.subjectProstate Specific Antigenen_US
dc.subjectBlood Transfusionsen_US
dc.subjectBlood Lossen_US
dc.subjectOperating Timeen_US
dc.subjectLength of Stayen_US
dc.subjectHistopathologyen_US
dc.subjectPositive Surgical Marginen_US
dc.subjectPSMen_US
dc.subjectPerioperative Outcomesen_US
dc.subjectLRP Learning Curveen_US
dc.subjectLaparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy Learning Curveen_US
dc.subjectUroRenal, Vascular Clinical Institute, Epworth HealthCare, Victoria, Australiaen_US
dc.subjectRobotic Surgery, Epworth Healthcare, Australiaen_US
dc.titleThe Australian laparoscopic radical prostatectomy learning curve.en_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/ans.14025en_US
dc.identifier.journaltitleANZ Journal of Surgeryen_US
dc.description.pubmedurihttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28512777en_US
dc.description.affiliatesDepartment of Urology, The University of Newcastle, Gosford Hospital, Gosford, New South Wales, Australia.en_US
dc.description.affiliatesDepartment of Urology, Pindara Gold Coast Private Hospital, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.en_US
dc.description.affiliatesDepartment of Pathology, Uropath Pty Ltd, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.en_US
dc.description.affiliatesSchool of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.en_US
dc.description.affiliatesSchool of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.en_US
dc.description.affiliatesDepartment of Urology, The Wesley Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.en_US
dc.description.affiliatesDepartment of Urology, Geelong Hospital, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.en_US
dc.description.affiliatesDepartment of Urology, St John of God Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.en_US
dc.description.affiliatesDepartment of Urology, Barwon Health University Hospital, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.en_US
dc.description.affiliatesDepartment of Surgery, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.en_US
dc.description.affiliatesUrology Unit, Western Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.en_US
dc.description.affiliatesDepartment of Urology, St Vincent's Private Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.en_US
dc.description.affiliatesDepartment of Urology, Hollywood Private Hospital, Nedlands, Western Australia, Australia.en_US
dc.description.affiliatesDepartment of Urology, Bethesda Hospital, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.en_US
dc.description.affiliatesDepartment of Urology, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.en_US
dc.description.affiliatesDepartment of Urology, Gosford Private Hospital, Gosford, New South Wales, Australia.en_US
dc.type.studyortrialComparative Studyen_US
dc.type.contenttypeTexten_US
Appears in Collections:Epworth Prostate Centre
UroRenal, Vascular

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in Epworth are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.