A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Morbidity of retropubic radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer in renal transplant recipients: multicenter study from Renal Transplantation Committee of French Urological Association. | LitMetric

Objectives: To evaluate the morbidity and surgical complications of retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) in renal transplant recipients (RTRs) and compare these results with the observed morbidity in a control group of nontransplanted patients.

Methods: We conducted a multicenter retrospective study and reviewed the charts and records of 20 RTRs who had undergone RRP for localized prostate cancer at four French renal transplant centers belonging to the Renal Transplantation Committee of the French Urological Association from April 1996 to April 2007. A total of 40 patients who had undergone RRP at the same centers, by the same surgeons, were analyzed as the case-control population.

Results: The mean operating time (163 +/- 41 vs 160 +/- 66 minutes), blood loss (516 +/- 279 vs 566 +/- 449 mL), transfusion rate (20% vs 22.5%), and hospital stay (11.9 +/- 5.44 vs 9.45 +/- 2.8 days) were similar in the RTR and case-control populations. No graft loss or graft injury was reported in the RTRs, except for two ureteral injuries that were immediately repaired during RRP. No decrease in the kidney graft function was observed after RRP. The rate of medical complication (deep venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, urinary tract infection) was similar in both groups, except for the rate of bacterial systemic infection, which was significantly greater in the RTRs than in the controls (15% vs 2.5%, P = .01).

Conclusions: In our study, RRP was a safe procedure to treat localized prostate cancer in RTRs. RRP resulted in the same morbidity in RTRs as in the case-control population.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2008.03.018DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

prostate cancer
12
renal transplant
12
retropubic radical
8
radical prostatectomy
8
transplant recipients
8
renal transplantation
8
transplantation committee
8
committee french
8
french urological
8
urological association
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!