Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction — Pediatric Robotic Versus Open Pyeloplasty
Citation(s)
Abraham NS, Hewett P, Young JM, Solomon MJ Non-entry of eligible patients into the Australasian Laparoscopic Colon Cancer Study. ANZ J Surg. 2006 Sep;76(9):825-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1445-2197.2006.03878.x.
Bate P, Robert G Experience-based design: from redesigning the system around the patient to co-designing services with the patient. Qual Saf Health Care. 2006 Oct;15(5):307-10. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2005.016527.
Bennet A, Eglash R, Krishnamoorthy M, Rarieya M Audience as Co-Designer: Participatory Design of HIV/AIDS Awareness & Prevention Posters in Kenya. In: Design Studies. New York: 2006. p. 179-97
Curry JI, Reeves B, Stringer MD Randomized controlled trials in pediatric surgery: could we do better? J Pediatr Surg. 2003 Apr;38(4):556-9. doi: 10.1053/jpsu.2003.50121.
Dangle PP, Kearns J, Anderson B, Gundeti MS Outcomes of infants undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty compared to open repair. J Urol. 2013 Dec;190(6):2221-6. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2013.07.063. Epub 2013 Aug 1.
Durani P, McGrouther DA, Ferguson MW The Patient Scar Assessment Questionnaire: a reliable and valid patient-reported outcomes measure for linear scars. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009 May;123(5):1481-1489. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181a205de.
Ferreira LM Surgical randomized controlled trials: reflection of the difficulties. Acta Cirurgica Brasileira 2005;19(Suppl 1):2-3.
Fowler FJ Jr, Barry MJ, Lu-Yao G, Wasson J, Roman A, Wennberg J Effect of radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer on patient quality of life: results from a Medicare survey. Urology. 1995 Jun;45(6):1007-13; discussion 1013-5. doi: 10.1016/s0090-4295(99)80122-8.
Freilich DA, Penna FJ, Nelson CP, Retik AB, Nguyen HT Parental satisfaction after open versus robot assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: results from modified Glasgow Children's Benefit Inventory Survey. J Urol. 2010 Feb;183(2):704-8. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.10.040. Epub 2009 Dec 21.
Greenfield S, Kaplan SH Building useful evidence: changing the clinical research paradigm to account for comparative effectiveness research. J Comp Eff Res. 2012 May;1(3):263-70. doi: 10.2217/CER.12.23.
Lee RS, Retik AB, Borer JG, Peters CA Pediatric robot assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: comparison with a cohort of open surgery. J Urol. 2006 Feb;175(2):683-7; discussion 687. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)00183-7.
Lim PC, Kang E, Park DH A comparative detail analysis of the learning curve and surgical outcome for robotic hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy versus laparoscopic hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy in treatment of endometrial cancer: a case-matched controlled study of the first one hundred twenty two patients. Gynecol Oncol. 2011 Mar;120(3):413-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2010.11.034. Epub 2010 Dec 30.
Liu DB, Ellimoottil C, Flum AS, Casey JT, Gong EM Contemporary national comparison of open, laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted laparoscopic pediatric pyeloplasty. J Pediatr Urol. 2014 Aug;10(4):610-5. doi: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2014.06.010. Epub 2014 Jul 11.
Mei H, Pu J, Yang C, Zhang H, Zheng L, Tong Q Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endourol. 2011 May;25(5):727-36. doi: 10.1089/end.2010.0544. Epub 2011 Apr 8.
Ostlie DJ, St Peter SD The current state of evidence-based pediatric surgery. J Pediatr Surg. 2010 Oct;45(10):1940-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2010.05.008.
Psooy K, Pike JG, Leonard MP Long-term followup of pediatric dismembered pyeloplasty: how long is long enough? J Urol. 2003 May;169(5):1809-12; discussion 1812; author reply 1812. doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000055040.19568.ea.
Salem YH, Majd M, Rushton HG, Belman AB Outcome analysis of pediatric pyeloplasty as a function of patient age, presentation and differential renal function. J Urol. 1995 Nov;154(5):1889-93.
Sanematsu H, Hong Y, Cole L Listening through Seeing: Using Design Methods to Learn about the Health Perceptions of Garden on the Go Customors. Indianapolis: 2014
Sanematsu H, Wiehe S Learning to look: Design in health services research. Touchpoint 2014
Sanematsu H 53. Fun with Facebook: The Impact of Focus Groups on the Development of Awareness Campaigns for Adolescent Health. Journal of Adolescent Health 2011;48(2):S44-5
Tanaka ST, Grantham JA, Thomas JC, Adams MC, Brock JW 3rd, Pope JC 4th A comparison of open vs laparoscopic pediatric pyeloplasty using the pediatric health information system database--do benefits of laparoscopic approach recede at younger ages? J Urol. 2008 Oct;180(4):1479-85. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2008.06.044. Epub 2008 Aug 16.
Varda BK, Johnson EK, Clark C, Chung BI, Nelson CP, Chang SL National trends of perioperative outcomes and costs for open, laparoscopic and robotic pediatric pyeloplasty. J Urol. 2014 Apr;191(4):1090-5. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2013.10.077. Epub 2013 Oct 25.
Yohannes P, Rotariu P, Pinto P, Smith AD, Lee BR Comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic skills: is there a difference in the learning curve? Urology. 2002 Jul;60(1):39-45; discussion 45. doi: 10.1016/s0090-4295(02)01717-x.
Yu HY, Hevelone ND, Lipsitz SR, Kowalczyk KJ, Hu JC Use, costs and comparative effectiveness of robotic assisted, laparoscopic and open urological surgery. J Urol. 2012 Apr;187(4):1392-8. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.11.089. Epub 2012 Feb 16.
Pediatric Robotic Versus Open Pyeloplasty: A Pilot Randomized Control Study
Interventional studies are often prospective and are specifically tailored to evaluate direct impacts of treatment or preventive measures on disease.
Observational studies are often retrospective and are used to assess potential causation in exposure-outcome relationships and therefore influence preventive methods.
Expanded access is a means by which manufacturers make investigational new drugs available, under certain circumstances, to treat a patient(s) with a serious disease or condition who cannot participate in a controlled clinical trial.
Clinical trials are conducted in a series of steps, called phases - each phase is designed to answer a separate research question.
Phase 1: Researchers test a new drug or treatment in a small group of people for the first time to evaluate its safety, determine a safe dosage range, and identify side effects.
Phase 2: The drug or treatment is given to a larger group of people to see if it is effective and to further evaluate its safety.
Phase 3: The drug or treatment is given to large groups of people to confirm its effectiveness, monitor side effects, compare it to commonly used treatments, and collect information that will allow the drug or treatment to be used safely.
Phase 4: Studies are done after the drug or treatment has been marketed to gather information on the drug's effect in various populations and any side effects associated with long-term use.