Characteristic Findings in Aborted Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomies

Abstract

Background:

In rare instances, patients deemed operative candidates for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) have their procedure aborted intraoperatively. Understanding the incidence and factors associated with aborted RARP cases can improve preoperative counseling and intraoperative decision-making. We performed a retrospective analysis of RARP cases performed by high-volume surgeons across our multihospital medical system to characterize the incidence and causes of aborted procedures.

Methods:

We queried the Northwestern Electronic Data Warehouse from January 2018 to June 2024 for patients who underwent RARP performed by high-volume surgeons. Aborted procedures were defined as those terminated after anesthesia but before completion. Comparative statistics were used to evaluate clinical, radiologic, and pathologic characteristics between aborted and completed cases. Imaging features of propensity-matched patients with completed or aborted procedures were also analyzed.

Results:

Among 3316 RARPs performed by 10 high-volume surgeons, 26 cases (0.7%) were aborted. The leading causes were pelvic lipomatosis (35%), adhesions (27%), and cardiorespiratory events (12%). Higher body mass index (BMI) was significantly associated with aborted operation (30.7 vs 27.8, p = 0.015). Although prior abdominal operations were more frequent in the aborted group (7.7% vs 2.6%), this was not statistically significant (p = 0.2). Perioperative complications occurred in 12% of aborted cases. Four cases were reattempted, with three completed effectively. The apparent diffusion coefficient of perivesical pelvic fat was higher in aborted cases but not statistically significant (p = 0.13).

Conclusions:

The incidence of aborted RARP among experienced surgeons is low, accounting for less than 1% of all cases. Pelvic lipomatosis was the most common reason for an aborted procedure and may be recognized preoperatively on imaging. Higher BMI was associated with a significantly higher risk for aborted procedure. When counseling patients, this information could be used to set expectations for the risk of an aborted procedure.

Introduction

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most commonly diagnosed cancer and the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths among men worldwide. In 2024, it is estimated that nearly 300,000 men will be found to have PCa, and over 35,000 will die as a result of the disease.^1,2 For men with localized disease, radical prostatectomy (RP) is the surgical mainstay of treatment. Historically performed using open or laparoscopic techniques, the robotic approach has become the predominant method in the United States.^3
–5 Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is a safe and effective treatment for many men with PCa carrying a low 0.1% 30-day mortality rate, but effective outcomes depend on appropriate patient selection.⁶ Factors such as age, life expectancy, comorbidities, and surgical risks must be carefully weighed when advising patients to undergo RARP.⁷

Although the vast majority of RARPs are effectively completed, in rare instances, the procedure is aborted intraoperatively, even in patients deemed suitable candidates. Increased body mass index (BMI), respiratory issues, and prior abdominal surgeries have been reported as potential risk factors.^8
–10 However, data on the incidence and characteristics of aborted RARPs, particularly among high-volume prostatectomy surgeons, remain limited. This study aims to address this gap by investigating the incidence and clinical features of aborted RARPs among high-volume surgeons, with the goal of improving preoperative planning and surgical outcomes.

Methods

This study was approved as a retrospective analysis by the Northwestern University Institutional Review Board (IRB #STU00214996). The Northwestern Electronic Data Warehouse was queried for all patients who underwent RARP with a high-volume surgeon from January 2018 to June 2024. High-volume was defined as a surgeon who performed >25 RARP per year. The study was limited to high-volume surgeons to limit bias of capturing surgeons performing RARPs only occasionally across our hospital system. A threshold of 25 was established based on previous literature and a reasonable cutoff of 2 cases per month.^11,12 We stratified patients based on whether the case was completed or aborted. Aborted prostatectomies were defined as surgeries that were terminated after the patient was anesthetized and the procedure was started, but before completion of the full surgical procedure. For aborted procedures, operative notes were reviewed to determine the cause of termination. The completed prostatectomy group served as the control cohort.

We collected baseline clinical and pathologic data for each patient. Operative and perioperative variables were recorded, including procedure duration, estimated blood loss, readmission, and any cardiac event within 60 days. Statistical analyses were performed using R (Version 4.4.1). As part of the exploratory study design, comparative statistics (Fisher’s exact test, Wilcoxon rank sum test) were used to compare the aborted prostatectomy group to the completed prostatectomy group. Statistical significance was set at p = 0.05.

The imaging characteristics of patients with pelvic lipomatosis reported as the cause of an aborted prostatectomy were further investigated as an exploratory outcome to better understand the properties of the fat. These patients were compared to a control cohort of effectively completed cases using propensity score matching based on BMI in a 3:1 manner. The apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps were obtained based on b-value of 1600 s/mm² of the multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). These were used to measure the ADC values of the perivesical pelvic fat for every patient and compared between the two groups.

Results

Ten high-volume surgeons performed a total of 3316 RARPs, of which 3290 (99.2%) were completed and 26 (0.8%) were aborted. Patient characteristics in both the aborted and control cohorts are detailed in Table 1. Patient age, BMI, abdominal operation history, reason for abortion, and definitive treatment for each aborted case are reported in Supplementary Table S1. The median age, comorbidities, pathologic features, and prostate features did not differ significantly between the two groups. Prior abdominal surgeries were roughly thrice more common among men with aborted RARP compared with control, but this did not demonstrate statistical significance (7.7% vs 2.6%, p = 0.2). The BMI of patients with an aborted RARP was higher compared with the control group (median 30.6 vs 27.7, p = 0.015).

Table 1.

Patient Characteristics

Characteristic	Aborted RP, n = 26^a	Effective RP, n = 3290^a	p ^b
Age	66.00 (62.00, 69.00)	67.00 (62.00, 72.00)	0.4
Charleson Comobidity Index (CCI)	5.00 (4.00, 6.00)	4.00 (4.00, 6.00)	0.4
BMI	30.67 (27.72, 32.35)	27.71 (25.25, 30.56)	0.015
History of abdominal operation	2 (7.7%)	87 (2.6%)	0.2
Laparoscopic cholecystectomy	1 (3.8%)	22 (0.7%)
Laparoscopic nephrectomy	0 (0%)	21 (0.6%)
Laparoscopic hernia repair	1 (3.8%)	14 (0.4%)
Laparoscopic colectomy	0 (0%)	10 (0.3%)
Other	0 (0%)	20 (0.6%)
Race			0.4
Asian	0 (0%)	58 (1.8%)
Black or African American	6 (23%)	382 (12%)
White	16 (62%)	2,369 (72%)
Unknown	4 (15%)	481 (14.6%)
NCCN risk			0.3
Very low	0 (0%)	15 (0.7%)
Low	1 (4.8%)	117 (5.2%)
Favorable intermediate	7 (33%)	759 (34%)
Unfavorable intermediate	11 (52%)	849 (38%)
High	0 (0%)	332 (15%)
Very high	2 (9.5%)	173 (7.7%)
Unknown	5	1045
Gleason grade group			0.4
1	0 (0%)	176 (7.5%)
2	11 (50%)	1058 (45%)
3	9 (41%)	713 (30%)
4	0 (0%)	220 (9.3%)
5	2 (9.1%)	189 (8.0%)
Unknown	4	934
PSA	6.42 (4.72, 8.44)	5.93 (4.37, 8.97)	0.4
Unknown	4	409
PSA density	0.14 (0.09, 0.21)	0.15 (0.10, 0.24)	0.4
Unknown	6	1009
Prostate volume	45.00 (32.30, 65.00)	39.00 (29.60, 53.60)	0.11
Unknown	5	940

Median (IQR); n (%).

Wilcoxon rank-sum test; Fisher’s exact test.

BMI = body mass index; PSA = prostate specific antigen; RP = radical prostatectomy.

The most common causes for aborting a case were surgeon-reported pelvic lipomatosis (n = 9, 35%), dense adhesions (n = 7, 27%), and cardiorespiratory complications (n = 3, 12%) (Table 2). In total, three patients (12%) whose cases were aborted experienced perioperative complications as follows: two of the patients experienced a cardiac event within 60 days of attempted operation, and one patient was readmitted within 60 days because of cardiac complications. In the control cohort, 38 patients (1.2%) experienced a cardiac event within 60 days of attempted operation, and 60 patients (1.8%) were readmitted within 60 days. There were no 30- or 60-day mortalities among patients whose case was aborted.

Table 2.

Characteristics of Aborted Prostatectomies

Procedure characteristics (n = 26)
Perioperative complications	3 (12%)
Average case length (min)	67
Average blood loss (mL)	18
Cause of aborted prostatectomy (n = 26)
Pelvic lipomatosis	9 (35%)
Adhesions	7 (27%)
Cardiac and respiratory complications	3 (12%)
Disease spread	2 (8%)
Acute diverticulitis	1 (4%)
Atypical anatomy	1 (4%)
Obstruction by inflatable penile prosthesis reservoir	1 (4%)
Obliteration of posterior plane	1 (4%)
Urethral injury during catheterization	1 (4%)
Reattempted cases (n = 4)
Repeat cases effectively completed	3 (75%)

Four aborted RARPs were reattempted at a later date. The index operation was aborted for acute diverticulitis in one case and for cardiorespiratory decline under anesthesia in another. Both of these cases were effectively completed using a robotic approach. The third reattempted case was originally aborted because of dense adhesions and was effectively completed via the open retropubic approach. The final reattempted case was performed robotically and again aborted because of cardiorespiratory complications during anesthesia, which was the same reason for aborting the index case. This patient and the remaining 22 patients with an originally aborted RARP were referred for radiation therapy. The definitive treatment for majority of these patients was radiation therapy (either external or brachytherapy) along with androgen deprivation therapy (Supplementary Table S1).

Among the nine patients who had cases that were aborted because of surgeon-reported pelvic lipomatosis, eight had prostate MRIs that were available for review. The propensity matched cases included 18 patients matched on BMI who had underwent effective RP and were not diagnosed with pelvic lipomatosis. Among the 18 propensity matched cases, 14 had prostate MRIs that were available for review. The median ADC value of the perivesical pelvic fat in the aborted and control groups was 116.5 mm²/s (Interquartile range (IQR) = 154) and 61.5 mm²/s (IQR = 66), respectively (p = 0.38). The average ADC value of the perivesical pelvic fat in the aborted and control groups was 252.6 mm²/s and 103.3 mm²/s, respectively (p = 0.13).

Discussion

RARP remains a cornerstone treatment for men with localized PCa, which is the most diagnosed malignancy among men.¹ In recent years, RARP has dominated the surgical landscape because of shorter recovery periods, reduced blood loss, and improved functional outcomes.^4,13 Although rare, there remain instances in which RARP is aborted after induction of anesthesia. This study represents the largest effort to systematically evaluate causes and outcomes of aborted RARP at a tertiary care hospital.

We demonstrate that patients who underwent an aborted RARP were more likely to have a higher BMI compared with those who underwent an effectively completed RARP. As such, preoperative counseling for patients scheduled to undergo RARP should emphasize the potential risks associated with elevated BMI.^14,15 Patients with these risk factors may benefit from rehabilitation programs, including weight management strategies.

Our study is relatively unique as it focuses only on high volume surgeons and highlights the impact of pelvic lipomatosis, which has been underexplored as a complicating factor in RARP. Pelvic lipomatosis is a benign disease in which fat tissues overgrow and compress pelvic structures. In addition to causing obstructive urinary symptoms, pelvic lipomatosis greatly complicates RARP as it leads to decreased observation and maneuverability. Although screening for pelvic lipomatosis is not routinely performed, this pathology is detectable on MRI and CT.¹⁶ Patients with pelvic lipomatosis characteristically display a pear-shaped bladder with excessive fat deposition around the bladder (Fig. 1).¹⁷ Previous studies have used ADC values to assess periprostatic fat as a predictor of PCa aggressiveness, but this is the first to apply them in identifying pelvic lipomatosis.^18,19 We found that the absolute value of average ADC in the pelvic fat was higher, albeit not significantly, in aborted cases than in controls. This could be related to reduced compactness of the tissues or cellularity in pelvic lipomatosis. Detailed preoperative imaging to identify potential anatomical challenges, including use of MRI or CT, could play a crucial role in identifying patients at higher risk for aborted prostatectomy, particularly when conditions such as pelvic lipomatosis are identified.¹⁶

FIG. 1.

Example of pelvic lipomatosis presentation on MRI in an aborted prostatectomy case. T2-weighted MRI of a patient with pelvic lipomatosis. In this image, the bladder is being compressed into the characteristic “pear shape” because of the excess fat in the pelvic region. The white arrow highlights the excess fat deposition and subsequent bladder compression. MRI = magnetic resonance imaging.

The current literature regarding aborted RPs consists of case reports, case series, and limited mention in larger studies.^8,20,21 Our findings align with previous studies that identified adhesions and anatomical challenges as major contributors to aborted prostatectomies. For instance, in their case series of 6 patients, Chavali and coworkers reported that three patients had aborted prostatectomy because of pelvic mesh and bowel adhesions, one because of respiratory complications from anesthesia, one for narrow pelvis, and one because of abnormal pelvic vascular anatomy.⁸ The significant association between higher BMI and surgical complications mirrors findings in broader surgical literature.^14,22

Among the four previously aborted procedures that were reattempted, three were effectively completed—two via the same robotic approach and one through an open approach. These results highlight the feasibility of reattempting a robotic approach based on the original cause of early termination. In cases of an acute process (e.g., diverticulitis, cardiorespiratory issues), safe resolution of the problem should allow for RARP at a future date. In other cases, such as dense adhesions, an extraperitoneal approach will likely need to be used, whether open or robotic. Single-port extraperitoneal RARP should also be considered for these patients because of its ability to navigate confined surgical fields, particularly in cases complicated by adhesions.^23,24 Above all, however, it is important to consider that treatment with a nonoperative approach (i.e., radiation therapy) demonstrates comparable oncologic outcomes and may be preferable for those who have already experienced an aborted RARP, particularly if the aborted procedure was related to cardiac or other medical complications.²⁵ This is particularly relevant for patients with clear evidence of disease spread, such as the case with involvement of the seminal vesicles. Given the need for radiation therapy because of extraprostatic extension, the procedure should be discontinued promptly to minimize potential harm to the patient.

Hospital readmissions and cardiac complications after RARP are relatively rare with a systematic review reporting rates of 3.5% and <1%, respectively, which are in line with our experience.²⁶ The rate of major (Clavien III+) complications is also generally <5% for experienced surgeons.^27,28 Although the sample size of aborted procedures was small in our study, a noticeably higher rate of perioperative complications (12%) was seen. This may suggest that patients with aborted procedures are at higher risk of perioperative complications, potentially explained by higher BMI or comorbidity burden vs increased technical complexity of the surgeries.

Incorporating these findings into clinical practice can enhance shared decision-making between patients and providers. For high-risk patients, discussions should outline the possibility of aborted procedures and alternative treatment pathways, such as radiation therapy or alternative forms of robotic operation (i.e., transvesical or extraperitoneal).^23,24,29 In addition, developing risk prediction tools that integrate factors like BMI, imaging findings, and comorbidities could support individualized counseling and improve surgical planning.

There were several limitations of this study which should be noted. There was a relatively small cohort of patients who had an aborted RARP. This is both reassuring and reflects the real-world experience, as noted by the paucity of literature on this topic. Nevertheless, our study represents the largest collection of cases to date. Furthermore, as a tertiary care center with high-volume surgeons, the incidence of aborted RARP may be underestimated in our study. Because of the number of procedures performed each year, these surgeons might have different levels of comfort for continuing to operate in less optimal situations. Finally, the diagnosis of pelvic lipomatosis was based on surgeon report, and the information on the incidence of pelvic lipomatosis in effectively completed RARP was not available. Future studies could evaluate the utility of preoperative imaging for detection of pelvic lipomatosis, with advanced predictive analytics, to improve risk stratification of patients considering RARP.

Although RARP remains a safe and effective option for treating localized PCa, patient selection is critical for optimizing surgical outcomes. In the hands of a high-volume urologic surgeon, the rate of aborted RARPs was less than 1%. This study provides valuable insights into the causes and outcomes of aborted procedures, emphasizing the importance of modifiable risk factors such as BMI, as well as the utility of preoperative imaging. By incorporating these findings into clinical practice, surgeons can better counsel patients, mitigate risks, and potentially reduce the incidence of aborted procedures, ultimately improving the quality of care for men with PCa.

Footnotes

Authors’ Contributions

K.E.F.: Conceptualization, methodology, investigation, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing, and visualization. A.D.: Investigation, writing—original draft, and writing—review and editing. N.H.: Writing—review and editing and supervision. M.H.: Writing—review and editing and supervision. S.K.: Software, methodology, investigation, formal analysis, and data curation. Y.L.: Software, formal analysis, and data curation. C.S-o.: Writing—review and editing, supervision, and methodology. K.T.P.: Writing—review and editing and supervision. R.A.: Writing—review and editing, supervision, and methodology. H.D.P.: Writing—review and editing, supervision, methodology, and conceptualization. A.J.: Writing—review and editing, investigation, methodology, and conceptualization. A.E.R.: Writing—review and editing, supervision, project administration, methodology, and conceptualization.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets presented in this article are available upon request to protect patient confidentiality. Readers interested in additional information regarding the study’s data please contact the corresponding author.

Ethics Statement

The studies involving humans were approved by the Northwestern University Institutional Review Board. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. Written informed consent for participation was not required from the participants or the participants’ legal guardians/next of kin because of the nature involving retrospective review of existing patient data.

Author Disclosure Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Funding Information

H.D.P. is supported by a Prostate Cancer Foundation Young Investigator Award and a Developmental Research Program grant from the SPORE in Prostate Cancer (P50 CA 180995). The Northwestern Electronic Data Warehouse was supported by NUCATS grant UL1TR001422 from the National Institutes of Health’s National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Supplementary Material

Supplementary Table S1

Abbreviations Used

References

Wang

, Lu

, He

, et al. Prostate cancer incidence and mortality: Global status and temporal trends in 89 countries from 2000 to 2019. Front Public Health, 2022; 10:811044; doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.811044

Siegel

, Giaquinto

, Jemal

. Cancer statistics, 2024. CA Cancer J Clin, 2024; 74(1):12–49; doi: 10.3322/caac.21820

Iadeluca

, Mardekian

, Chander

, et al. The burden of selected cancers in the US: Health behaviors and health care resource utilization. Cancer Manag Res, 2017; 9:721–730.

Haese

, Knipper

, Isbarn

, et al. A comparative study of robot‐assisted and open radical prostatectomy in 10 790 men treated by highly trained surgeons for both procedures. BJU Int, 2019; 123(6):1031–1040; doi: 10.1111/bju.14760

Logan

, Mahenthiran

, Siddiqui

, et al. Disparities in access to robotic technology and perioperative outcomes among patients treated with radical prostatectomy. J Surg Oncol, 2023; 128(2):375–384; doi: 10.1002/jso.27274

Patel

, Ball

, Cohen

, et al. Morbidity of urologic surgical procedures: An analysis of rates, risk factors, and outcomes. Urology, 2015; 85(3):552–559; doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2014.11.034

Lepor

. Selecting candidates for radical prostatectomy. Rev Urol, 2000; 2(3):182–189.

Chavali

, Garisto

, Bertolo

, et al. Robotic radical prostatectomy after aborted prostatectomy: Still feasible? The experience from a tertiary care center. J Robot Surg, 2019; 13(3):407–412; doi: 10.1007/s11701-018-0870-x

Mikhail

, Stockton

, Orvieto

, et al. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy in overweight and obese patients. Urology, 2006; 67(4):774–779; doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2005.10.049

10.

Mustafa

, Pettaway

, Davis

, et al. Robotic or open radical prostatectomy after previous open surgery in the pelvic region. Korean J Urol, 2015; 56(2):131–137; doi: 10.4111/kju.2015.56.2.131

11.

Bianco

Jr , Riedel

, Begg

, et al. Variations among high volume surgeons in the rate of complications after radical prostatectomy: Further evidence that technique matters. J Urol, 2005; 173(6):2099–2103; doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000158163.21079.66

12.

Barzi

, Klein

, Daneshmand

, et al. Access to high-volume surgeons and the opportunity cost of performing radical prostatectomy by low-volume providers. Urol Oncol, 2017; 35(7):459 e15–459 e24; doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2017.01.021

13.

, Chang

, Chen

, et al. Comparison of acute and chronic surgical complications following robot-assisted, laparoscopic, and traditional open radical prostatectomy among men in Taiwan. JAMA Netw Open, 2021; 4(8):e2120156; doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.20156

14.

Herman

, Raman

, Dong

, et al. Increasing body mass index negatively impacts outcomes following robotic radical prostatectomy. Jsls, 2007; 11(4):438–442.

15.

Wani

, Al-Mitwalli

, Mukherjee

, et al. Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) in post-prostatectomy patients: Systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Med, 2023; 12(12); doi: 10.3390/jcm12123979

16.

Al-Nabulsi

, Abdalla

, Phan

, Solomon

. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy on a patient with pelvic lipomatosis. Journal of Clinical Urology, 2022; 15(2):176–179; doi: 10.1177/2051415820922458

17.

Xia

, Yan

, Peng

, et al. Image characteristics of computer tomography urography in pelvic lipomatosis. Int J Clin Exp Med, 2014; 7(1):296–299.

18.

Vieira

DFM

, Torres

CVS

, Secaf

, et al. Comparison of morphological and functional MRI assessments of periprostatic fat for predicting prostate cancer aggressiveness. Int Braz J Urol, 2025; 51(1); doi: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2024.0318

19.

Laine-Caroff

, Bruyere

, Mathieu

, et al. The volume and thickness of preprostatic fat on MRIs are not associated with prostate cancer aggressiveness in men undergoing radical prostatectomy. Prog Urol, 2022; 32(5):341–353; doi: 10.1016/j.purol.2022.01.006

20.

Badani

, Kaul

, Menon

. Evolution of robotic radical prostatectomy: Assessment after 2766 procedures. Cancer, 2007; 110(9):1951–1958; doi: 10.1002/cncr.23027

21.

Kowalczyk

, Huang

, Williams

, et al. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy after aborted retropubic radical prostatectomy. J Robot Surg, 2013; 7(3):301–304; doi: 10.1007/s11701-012-0377-9

22.

Wang

, Qin

, Liu

, et al. Perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes in obese patients undergoing Da Vinci robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Urol, 2024; 24(1):207; doi: 10.1186/s12894-024-01595-5

23.

Kaouk

, Valero

, Sawczyn

, et al. Extraperitoneal single-port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: Initial experience and description of technique. BJU Int, 2020; 125(1):182–189; doi: 10.1111/bju.14885

24.

Kaouk

, Beksac

, Abou Zeinab

, et al. Single port transvesical robotic radical prostatectomy: Initial clinical experience and description of technique. Urology, 2021; 155:130–137; doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2021.05.022

25.

Hamdy

, Donovan

, Lane

, et al.; ProtecT Study Group. 10-Year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med, 2023; 388(17):1547–1558; doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1606220

26.

Tewari

, Sooriakumaran

, Bloch

, et al. Positive surgical margin and perioperative complication rates of primary surgical treatments for prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing retropubic, laparoscopic, and robotic prostatectomy. Eur Urol, 2012; 62(1):1–15; doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.02.029

27.

, Yang

, Wang

, et al. The learning curve for reducing complications of robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy by a single surgeon. BJU Int, 2011; 108(3):420–425; doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09847.x

28.

Huang

, Su

, Becker

REN

, et al. Complications after open and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and association with postoperative opioid use: An analysis of data from the PREVENTER trial. BJU Int, 2021; 127(2):190–197; doi: 10.1111/bju.15172

29.

Drysch

, Fink

, Suk-Ouichai

, et al. Advances in radical prostatectomy: A narrative review. Rev in Urology, 2024; 23(3):e27–e40.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB