Department of Urology, Albert Einstein Medical Center, 244 West 64th Street, Apt 1C, New York, NY 10023, USA.
Urology. 2011 Apr;77(4):941-5. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2010.07.505. Epub 2011 Jan 21.
To search online using the Google search engine to determine what information for robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is available and whether the claims made on the Internet are supported by the published peer-reviewed urologic data.
The term "robotic prostatectomy" was searched using Google on September 29, 2009. The first 50 Web sites were reviewed for RARP specific outcomes, including oncologic outcomes, potency, continence, recovery, and blood loss. All claims were compared with the accepted standards supported by the existing published urologic data.
Of the first 50 Web sites, 9 were rejected. Of the remaining 41, 29 were from academic practices and 8 from nonacademic practices; for 4, this distinction was not applicable. Also, 19 sites had direct links, photographs, or text from the Intuitive Surgical Web site, and 22 sites did not. Of the 41 Web sites, 20 made no mention of surgeon experience with RARP and 21 did, with an average experience of 1487 ± 1206 cases. More than 60% of the sites claimed better potency outcomes with RARP than with radical retropubic prostatectomy, although 32% of sites omitted this information. Similarly, 63% of the Web sites claimed improved continence with RARP than with radical retropubic prostatectomy, and 29% of the sites made no mention of continence. Data on oncologic efficacy was missing from 22% of the Web sites, 22% suggested the cancer outcomes were equivalent between RARP and radical retropubic prostatectomy, and 56% suggested the cancer outcomes were better with RARP. Concerning postoperative recovery and blood loss, 85% of the sites stated that both were improved with RARP, and only 15% omitted these data.
Overall, an online search using the Google search engine for robotic prostatectomy yielded many Web sites with unsubstantiated information of variable accuracy.
使用谷歌搜索引擎在网上搜索,以确定有关机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术(RARP)的信息,并确定互联网上的说法是否得到已发表的同行评议泌尿科数据的支持。
于 2009 年 9 月 29 日使用谷歌搜索了“机器人前列腺切除术”一词。共查看了前 50 个网站,以了解 RARP 的具体结果,包括肿瘤学结果、性功能、尿控、恢复情况和出血量。将所有的说法与现有发表的泌尿科数据所支持的公认标准进行比较。
在最初的 50 个网站中,有 9 个被排除。在剩余的 41 个网站中,有 29 个来自学术机构,8 个来自非学术机构;对于 4 个网站,这一区别不适用。此外,有 19 个网站有来自直觉外科公司网站的直接链接、照片或文字,而 22 个网站则没有。在这 41 个网站中,有 20 个网站未提及医生实施 RARP 的经验,有 21 个网站提到了,平均经验为 1487±1206 例。超过 60%的网站声称 RARP 的性功能结果比根治性前列腺切除术好,尽管 32%的网站省略了这一信息。同样,有 63%的网站声称 RARP 的尿控效果比根治性前列腺切除术好,而 29%的网站未提及尿控。有 22%的网站未提供肿瘤学疗效数据,22%的网站认为 RARP 和根治性前列腺切除术的癌症结果相当,而 56%的网站认为 RARP 的癌症结果更好。关于术后恢复和出血量,85%的网站表示 RARP 都能改善这两方面,只有 15%的网站省略了这些数据。
总的来说,使用谷歌搜索引擎进行在线搜索,针对机器人前列腺切除术,得到了许多网站的结果,但这些网站的信息缺乏依据,准确性也各不相同。