| Title |
Extraperitoneal Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Indications, Technique and Outcomes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Urology Reports, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11934-017-0689-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alice Semerjian, Christian P. Pavlovich |
| Abstract |
Extraperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (eRARP) is an alternative to the more commonly employed transperitoneal RARP (tRARP) for treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. The purpose of this review is to discuss indications in which eRARP would be a more favorable approach in comparison to tRARP. In addition, we will discuss the safety and technique of eRARP. Recently published work has highlighted the outcomes and safety of eRARP in comparison to tRARP; specifically that eRARP is not inferior to tRARP. In addition, eRARP may be preferred in certain circumstances. For example, Ludwig et al. recently discussed the concomitant repair of inguinal hernia during eRARP. Extraperitoneal RARP is a safe and effective alternative to tRARP. With previous knowledge and experience with tRARP, urologists can adapt the extraperitoneal approach without difficulty. This approach is useful for specific situations in which tRARP may be challenging. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 38 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 6 | 16% |
| Researcher | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 16% |
| Unknown | 12 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 45% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Linguistics | 1 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 16 | 42% |
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 19 April 2017.
All research outputs
#15,454,502
of 22,965,074 outputs
Outputs from Current Urology Reports
#454
of 592 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#194,209
of 310,294 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Urology Reports
#5
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,965,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 592 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 310,294 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.