Guangxiang Liu
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
Guangxiang Liu has a total of 6 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Changwei Ji
Department of Urology, Drum Tower Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Institute of Urology, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China
1 shared publication - Hongqian Guo
Department of Urology, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, Affiliated Hospital of Medical School, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China
1 shared publication - Qing Zhang
Department of Urology, Drum Tower Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Institute of Urology, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China
1 shared publication - Shengjie Zhang
Department of Urology, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, The Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University Medical School, Nanjing 210008, China
1 shared publication - Shiwei Zhang
Department of Urology, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, Affiliated Hospital of Medical School, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China
1 shared publication - Tingsheng Lin
Department of Urology, Drum Tower Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Institute of Urology, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- 10 January 2020
- Published by Wiley in The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery
- Vol. 16 (2) , e2074
Comparison of perioperative outcomes in robot‐assisted radical cystectomy and laparoscopic radical cystectomy
Objective: To report perioperative outcomes in robot‐assisted radical cystectomy and laparoscopic radical cystectomy.Patients and Methods: Between January 2010 and July 2019, 298 patients with bladder cancer underwent robotic‐assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) (n = 172) and laparoscopic radical cystectomy (LRC) (n = 126) at our institution were enrolled in the retrospective study. The demographic, perioperative, and complication data were collected and analyzed.Results: The RARC group had less operative duration (P < .001), less blood loss (P < .001), lower transfusion rate (P < .05), and shorter hospital stay (P < .001) than the LRC group. The 90‐day readmission rate between the RARC and LRC group had no significant differences (P = .401). The 90‐day overall complication rates in the RARC group was much lower than the LRC group (P = .009). The 90‐day minor complication rates (Clavien‐Dindo grade ≤ IIA) between the RARC and LRC groups were similar (P = .274). The 90‐day major complication rates (Clavien‐Dindo grade ≥ IIIA) in the LRC group was higher than the RARC group (P = .022).Conclusions: The RARC approach appears to offer some operative and perioperative benefits compared with the LRC approach. Larger, randomized studies are required to confirm these findings.
- 10 January 2020
- Published by Wiley in The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery
- Vol. 16 (2) , e2074
Comparison of perioperative outcomes in robot‐assisted radical cystectomy and laparoscopic radical cystectomy
Objective: To report perioperative outcomes in robot‐assisted radical cystectomy and laparoscopic radical cystectomy.Patients and Methods: Between January 2010 and July 2019, 298 patients with bladder cancer underwent robotic‐assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) (n = 172) and laparoscopic radical cystectomy (LRC) (n = 126) at our institution were enrolled in the retrospective study. The demographic, perioperative, and complication data were collected and analyzed.Results: The RARC group had less operative duration (P < .001), less blood loss (P < .001), lower transfusion rate (P < .05), and shorter hospital stay (P < .001) than the LRC group. The 90‐day readmission rate between the RARC and LRC group had no significant differences (P = .401). The 90‐day overall complication rates in the RARC group was much lower than the LRC group (P = .009). The 90‐day minor complication rates (Clavien‐Dindo grade ≤ IIA) between the RARC and LRC groups were similar (P = .274). The 90‐day major complication rates (Clavien‐Dindo grade ≥ IIIA) in the LRC group was higher than the RARC group (P = .022).Conclusions: The RARC approach appears to offer some operative and perioperative benefits compared with the LRC approach. Larger, randomized studies are required to confirm these findings.