Eric H. Kim
Research Subjects
Eric H. Kim has a total of 5 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Jeffrey A. Larson
Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri 63110;
2 shared publications - Gerald L. Andriole
Division of Urologic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO
1 shared publication - Gerald L. Andriole
Washington University in St. Louis, Barnes Jewish Hospital
1 shared publication - Michael Figenshau
Washington University School of Medicine
1 shared publication - Robert Sherburne Figenshau
Division of Urologic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Top Cited Papers
- 14 January 2016
- Published by Annual Reviews in Annual Review of Medicine
- Vol. 67 (1) , 137-151
Management of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia
Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and associated lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) commonly affect older men. Age-related changes associated with metabolic disturbances, changes in hormone balance, and chronic inflammation may cause of BPH development. The diagnosis of BPH hinges on a thorough medical history and focused physical examination, with attention to other conditions that may be causing LUTS. Digital rectal examination and urinalysis should be performed. Other testing may be considered depending on presentation of symptoms, including prostate-specific antigen, serum creatinine, urine cytology, imaging, cystourethroscopy, post-void residual, and pressure-flow studies. Many medical and surgical treatment options exist. Surgery should be reserved for patients who either have failed medical management or have complications from BPH, such as recurrent urinary tract infections, refractory urinary retention, bladder stones, or renal insufficiency as a result of obstructive uropathy. Expected final o...
- 14 January 2016
- Published by Annual Reviews in Annual Review of Medicine
- Vol. 67 (1) , 137-151
Top Cited PapersManagement of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia
Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and associated lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) commonly affect older men. Age-related changes associated with metabolic disturbances, changes in hormone balance, and chronic inflammation may cause of BPH development. The diagnosis of BPH hinges on a thorough medical history and focused physical examination, with attention to other conditions that may be causing LUTS. Digital rectal examination and urinalysis should be performed. Other testing may be considered depending on presentation of symptoms, including prostate-specific antigen, serum creatinine, urine cytology, imaging, cystourethroscopy, post-void residual, and pressure-flow studies. Many medical and surgical treatment options exist. Surgery should be reserved for patients who either have failed medical management or have complications from BPH, such as recurrent urinary tract infections, refractory urinary retention, bladder stones, or renal insufficiency as a result of obstructive uropathy. Expected final o...
- Open Access
- 24 March 2015
- Published by Springer Nature in BMC Medicine
- Vol. 13 (1) , 61
Prostate-specific antigen-based screening: controversy and guidelines
Although prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening has improved the detection of prostate cancer, allowing for stage migration to less advanced disease, the precise mortality benefit of early detection is unclear. This is in part due to a discrepancy between the two large randomized controlled trials comparing PSA screening to usual care. The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) found a survival benefit to screening, while the United States Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial did not. Furthermore, the benefit of immediate surgical intervention for screen-detected prostate cancer is unclear, as the results superficially differ between the two large randomized controlled trials comparing prostatectomy to observation. The Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial (PIVOT) found no survival benefit for prostatectomy in PSA screened U.S. men, while the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group Study Number Four (SPCG-4) found a survival benefit for prostatectomy in clinically diagnosed prostate cancer. As a result of the controversy surrounding PSA screening and subsequent prostate cancer treatment, guidelines vary widely by organization.
- 24 March 2015
- Published by Springer Nature in BMC Medicine
- Vol. 13 (1) , 61
Open AccessProstate-specific antigen-based screening: controversy and guidelines
Although prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening has improved the detection of prostate cancer, allowing for stage migration to less advanced disease, the precise mortality benefit of early detection is unclear. This is in part due to a discrepancy between the two large randomized controlled trials comparing PSA screening to usual care. The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) found a survival benefit to screening, while the United States Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial did not. Furthermore, the benefit of immediate surgical intervention for screen-detected prostate cancer is unclear, as the results superficially differ between the two large randomized controlled trials comparing prostatectomy to observation. The Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial (PIVOT) found no survival benefit for prostatectomy in PSA screened U.S. men, while the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group Study Number Four (SPCG-4) found a survival benefit for prostatectomy in clinically diagnosed prostate cancer. As a result of the controversy surrounding PSA screening and subsequent prostate cancer treatment, guidelines vary widely by organization.
- 17 December 2013
- Published by Springer Nature in Current Urology Reports
- Vol. 15 (1) , 1-7
Perioperative Complications of Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy
The incidence of renal cell carcinoma continues to increase with utilization of diagnostic abdominal imaging with migration towards a proportionally greater detection of small renal masses (SRM). Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) has become an attractive minimally invasive treatment modality for SRM's due to the technical advantages and shortened learning curve compared to laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) while preserving comparable perioperative outcomes. With advances in ablative approaches for stage I renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and controversy surrounding the role of extirpative surgery for SRM's, systematic understanding of the complications associated with RAPN has become even more imperative. This review aims to summarize and evaluate the contemporary literature, compile reported intraoperative complications, describe conventional and nephron-sparing surgery (NSS) specific postoperative complications, and assess factors associated with an increased likelihood for perioperative complications following RAPN.
- 17 December 2013
- Published by Springer Nature in Current Urology Reports
- Vol. 15 (1) , 1-7
Perioperative Complications of Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy
The incidence of renal cell carcinoma continues to increase with utilization of diagnostic abdominal imaging with migration towards a proportionally greater detection of small renal masses (SRM). Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) has become an attractive minimally invasive treatment modality for SRM's due to the technical advantages and shortened learning curve compared to laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) while preserving comparable perioperative outcomes. With advances in ablative approaches for stage I renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and controversy surrounding the role of extirpative surgery for SRM's, systematic understanding of the complications associated with RAPN has become even more imperative. This review aims to summarize and evaluate the contemporary literature, compile reported intraoperative complications, describe conventional and nephron-sparing surgery (NSS) specific postoperative complications, and assess factors associated with an increased likelihood for perioperative complications following RAPN.