title: Contemporary referral pattern for robotic prostatectomy.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  In spite of the current widespread application of robotic surgery in the treatment of prostate cancer, it remains unclear whether current patterns of use are based on patient benefit or driven by marketing. We sought to investigate this possibility by analyzing the source of our patient population for robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP).
  
  
  METHODS
  We reviewed 200 consecutive patients who underwent robotic prostatectomy by a single surgeon (RA) at our institution. The source of referral for each patient was analyzed along with individual patient characteristics to identify whether only low-risk or unusually ideal candidates were referred.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Of the 200 patients, 90.5% were referred by a urologist with only 5.5% being referred by another urologist at our institution. Only <10 patients cited media or marketing sources as the reason for self-referral, and 10 were referred by primary care physicians or other acquaintances. This referral pattern did not change between the first and second 100 patients. Referred patients included those up to 80 years of age, up to 51 kg/m(2) in body mass index, and up to Gleason 9 on biopsy, with 36% of those referred by urologists having some history of previous abdominal or prostate surgery.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The referral pattern for RALP at our institution may reflect a growing acceptance of robotic surgery among urologists in our region and is unlikely driven by patient-directed marketing. Additionally, urologists may also be more confident in the role of RALP as evidenced by their referral of even complex and higher-risk patients.
authors: Robotic Urologic Surgery, Department of Urology, The Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA. pankajdangle@gmail.com
authors: Pankaj P
authors: PP
authors: Dangle
authors: Ronney
authors: R
authors: Abaza
references: Eur Urol. 2009 May;55(5):1037-63
references: 19185977
references: Urology. 2002 Nov;60(5):864-8
references: 12429317
references: BJU Int. 2005 Jul;96(1):39-42
references: 15963117
references: Br J Urol. 1996 Oct;78(4):557-63
references: 8944512
references: Curr Opin Urol. 2008 Mar;18(2):173-9
references: 18303539
references: BJU Int. 2009 Feb;103(4):448-53
references: 18778350
references: BJU Int. 2003 Aug;92(3):205-10
references: 12887468
references: Urology. 1995 Jun;45(6):1007-13; discussion 1013-5
references: 7771002
references: Eur Urol. 1993;24(1):7-11
references: 8365444
references: Br J Urol. 1996 Jan;77(1):118-23
references: 8653281
references: Urology. 2004 May;63(5):819-22
references: 15134953
references: Urol Clin North Am. 2004 Nov;31(4):701-17
references: 15474597
references: J Endourol. 2008 Apr;22(4):819-24
references: 18419223
references: Br J Urol. 1995 Jan;75(1):48-53
references: 7850295
references: Urol Clin North Am. 2008 Aug;35(3):489-504, ix
references: 18761202
references: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1996 Jul 15;35(5):869-74
references: 8751394
references: CA Cancer J Clin. 2009 Jul-Aug;59(4):225-49
references: 19474385
references: J Clin Oncol. 1997 Jan;15(1):223-9
references: 8996146
references: Cancer. 2002 Jul 1;95(1):54-60
references: 12115317
references: Urol Clin North Am. 1996 Nov;23(4):651-63
references: 8948418