• 1
    Lavery HJ, Samadi DB, Leveillee RJ. Not a zero-sum game: the adoption of robotics has increased overall prostatectomy utilisation in the United States [document on the Internet]. Abstract presented at the American Urological Association Annual Meeting, 2011. Available at:,+Cost+Effectiveness&searchType=title. Accesssed January 2013
  • 2
    UK Department of Health. National Schedules of Reference Costs 2011–12. London: UK Department of Health, 2013. [speadsheets on the Internet]. Available at: Accessed January 2013
  • 3
    Guillonneau B, Cathelineau X, Barret E, Rozet F, Vallancien G. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: technical and early oncological assessment of 40 operations. Eur Urol 1999; 36: 1420
  • 4
    Abbou CC, Hoznek A, Salomon L et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with a remote controlled robot. J Urol 2001; 165 (6 Pt 1): 19641966
  • 5
    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; 187: 13921398
  • 6
    Bolenz C, Freedland SJ, Hollenbeck BK et al. Costs of radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2012; [Epub ahead of print]. Available online 4 September 2012. Available at: Accessed June 2013
  • 7
    Rassweiler J, Hruza M, Klein J, Goezen AS, Teber D. The role of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in the era of robotic surgery. Eur Urol Suppl 2010; 9: 379387
  • 8
    Ficarra V, Cavalleri S, Novara G, Aragona M, Artibani W. Evidence from robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2007; 51: 4555
  • 9
    Ramsay C, Pickard R, Robertson C et al. Systematic review and economic modelling of the relative clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery and robotic surgery for removal of the prostate in men with localised prostate cancer. Health Technol Assess 2012; 16: 1313
  • 10
    National Insititute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Improving Outcomes in Urological Cancers – Manual. London: National Insititute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 2002 [document on the Internet]. Available at: Accessed January 2013
  • 11
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Prostate Cancer. V.3.2011. Fort Washington, PA: National Comprehensive Cancer Network, 2011 [document on the Internet]. Available at: Accessed January 2013
  • 12
    Rabbani F, Yunis LH, Pinochet R et al. Comprehensive standardized report of complications of retropubic and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2010; 57: 371386
  • 13
    Egevad L, Srigley JR, Delahunt B. International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens: rationale and organization. Mod Pathol 2011; 24: 15
  • 14
    Higgins JP, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [document on the Internet]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available at: Accessed January 2013
  • 15
    Lu G, Ades AE. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med 2004; 23: 31053124
  • 16
    Lunn DJ, Thomas A, Best N, Spiegelhalter D. WINBUGS: a Bayesian modelling framework: concepts, structure and extensibility. Stat Comput 2000; 10: 325337
  • 17
    Sutton AJ, Abrams KR. Bayesian methods in meta-analysis and evidence synthesis. Stat Methods Med Res 2001; 10: 277303
  • 18
    Marinho VC, Higgins JP, Sheiham A, Logan S. Fluoride toothpastes for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003; (1): CD002278
  • 19
    Grossi FS, Di LS, Barnaba D et al. Laparoscopic versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: a case-control study at a single institution. Arch Ital Urol Androl 2010; 82: 109112
  • 20
    Asimakopoulos AD, Pereira Fraga CT, Annino F, Pasqualetti P, Calado AA, Mugnier C. Randomized comparison between laparoscopic and robot-assisted nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. J Sex Med 2011; 8: 15031512
  • 21
    Dalziel K, Round A, Stein K et al. Do the findings of case series studies vary significantly according to methodological characteristics? Health Technol Assess 2005; 9: 1146
  • 22
    Sharma NL, Papadopoulos A, Lee D et al. First 500 cases of robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy from a single UK centre: learning curves of two surgeons. BJU Int 2011; 108: 739747
  • 23
    Higgins JP, Ramsay C, Reeves BC et al. Issues relating to study design and risk of bias when including non-randomized studies in systematic reviews on the effects of interventions. Res Synth Methods 2013; 4: 1225
  • 24
    Flattery M, Harrington P, O'Neill M, Moran P, Telijer C. Health Technology Assessment of Robot-Assisted Surgery in Selected Surgical Procedures. Dublin: Health Information and Quality Authority Health Technology Assessment Directorate, 2012 [document on the Internet]. Available at: Accessed January 2013
  • 25
    Parsons JK, Bennett JL. Outcomes of retropubic, laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted prostatectomy. Urology 2008; 72: 412416
  • 26
    Tewari A, Sooriakumaran P, Bloch DA 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: 115
  • 27
    Sooriakumaran P, Haendler L, Nyberg T et al. Biochemical recurrence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in a European single-centre cohort with a minimum follow-up time of 5 years. Eur Urol 2012; 62: 768774
  • 28
    Yossepowitch O, Bjartell A, Eastham JA et al. Positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy: outlining the problem and its long-term consequences. Eur Urol 2009; 55: 8799
  • 29
    Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, D'Amico R et al. Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. Health Technol Assess 2003; 7: 1173
  • 30
    Ficarra V, Novara G, Rosen RC et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012; 62: 405417
  • 31
    Ho C, Tsakonas E, Tran K et al. Robot-Assisted Surgery Compared with Open Surgery and Laparoscopic Surgery: Clinical Effectiveness and Economic Analyses. Technology Report 137. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, 2011 [document on the Internet]. Available at: Accessed January 2013
  • 32
    Novara G, Ficarra V, Mocellin S et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting oncologic outcome after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012; 62: 382404
  • 33
    Novara G, Ficarra V, Rosen RC et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes and complications after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012; 62: 431452
  • 34
    Glenny AM, Altman DG, Song F et al. Indirect comparisons of competing interventions. Health Technol Assess 2005; 9: 1134, iii–iv
  • 35
    Hoaglin DC, Hawkins N, Jansen JP et al. Conducting indirect-treatment-comparison and network-meta-analysis studies: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 2. Value Health 2011; 14: 429437
  • 36
    Jansen JP, Fleurence R, Devine B et al. Interpreting indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis for health-care decision making: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 1. Value Health 2011; 14: 417428
  • 37
    Sutton A, Ades AE, Cooper N, Abrams K. Use of indirect and mixed treatment comparisons for technology assessment. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26: 753767
  • 38
    Horton R. Surgical research or comic opera: questions, but few answers. Lancet 1996; 347: 984985
  • 39
    Chandra V, Nehra D, Parent R et al. A comparison of laparoscopic and robotic assisted suturing performance by experts and novices. Surgery 2010; 147: 830839
  • 40
    Bianco FJ Jr, Vickers AJ, Cronin AM et al. Variations among experienced surgeons in cancer control after open radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2010; 183: 977982
  • 41
    Ahmed HU, Akin O, Coleman JA et al. Transatlantic Consensus Group on active surveillance and focal therapy for prostate cancer. BJU Int 2012; 109: 16361647