The European Association of Urology Robotic Urology Section (ERUS) survey of robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP)

To evaluate surgeons adherence to current clinical practice, with the available evidence, for robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and offer a baseline assessment to measure the impact of the Pasadena recommendations. Recently, the European Association of Urology Robotic Urology Section (ERUS) supported the Pasadena Consensus Conference on best practices in RARP.

[1]  J. Eastham,et al.  Systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes and complications after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. , 2012, European urology.

[2]  H. G. van der Poel,et al.  Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting potency rates after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. , 2012, European urology.

[3]  Markus Graefen,et al.  Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting oncologic outcome after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. , 2012, European urology.

[4]  H. G. van der Poel,et al.  Best practices in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: recommendations of the Pasadena Consensus Panel. , 2012, European urology.

[5]  H. G. van der Poel,et al.  Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. , 2012, European urology.

[6]  V. Ficarra,et al.  Trifecta outcomes after robot‐assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy , 2011, BJU international.

[7]  T. Ahlering,et al.  Transverse versus vertical camera port incision in robotic radical prostatectomy: effect on incisional hernias and cosmesis. , 2010, Urology.

[8]  M. Menon,et al.  A critical analysis of the current knowledge of surgical anatomy related to optimization of cancer control and preservation of continence and erection in candidates for radical prostatectomy. , 2010, European urology.

[9]  K. Palmer,et al.  Periurethral suspension stitch during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: description of the technique and continence outcomes. , 2009, European urology.

[10]  Arieh L. Shalhav,et al.  Trifecta outcomes after robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. , 2009, Urology.

[11]  M. Menon,et al.  Impact of percutaneous suprapubic tube drainage on patient discomfort after radical prostatectomy. , 2009, European urology.

[12]  B. Guillonneau,et al.  Is it necessary to remove the seminal vesicles completely at radical prostatectomy? decision curve analysis of European Society of Urologic Oncology criteria. , 2009, The Journal of urology.

[13]  A. Tewari,et al.  Total reconstruction of the vesico‐urethral junction , 2008, BJU international.

[14]  A. Tewari,et al.  ANATOMIC FOUNDATIONS FOR NERVE SPARING ROBOTIC PROSTATECTOMY: CORRELATIONS BETWEEN ANATOMIC, SURGICAL AND “REAL TIME TISSUE RECOGNITION” WITH MULTIPHOTON MICROSCOPY , 2008 .

[15]  R. Paterson,et al.  THE PREVALENCE OF DIABETES 20 YEARS FOLLOWING EXTRACORPOREAL SHOCKWAVE LITHOTRIPSY AT A SINGLE CENTER , 2008 .

[16]  A. Tewari,et al.  TOTAL RECONSTRUCTION OF THE VESICOURETHRAL JUNCTION; OPERATIVE TECHNIQUE AND FUNCTIONAL OUTCOMES , 2008 .

[17]  L. Horn,et al.  Anatomical landmarks of radical prostatecomy. , 2007, European urology.

[18]  A. Tewari,et al.  The proximal neurovascular plate and the tri‐zonal neural architecture around the prostate gland: importance in the athermal robotic technique of nerve‐sparing prostatectomy , 2006, BJU international.

[19]  P. Walsh,et al.  Anatomical studies of the neurovascular bundle and cavernosal nerves. , 2005, The Journal of urology.