Andrea Minervini

Dr. Andrea Minervini

Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
+1
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

25Years (2002-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
6 December 2005 in BJU International
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
AMAndrea Minervini
Andrea Minervini
DRDavid J. Ralph
David J. Ralph
JPJohn P. Pryor
John P. Pryor
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the outcome of penile prosthesis surgery for different types of prosthesis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The notes of 447 men who had 504 penile prosthesis implanted between August 1975 and December 2000 were evaluated. Of the prostheses inserted, 393 were malleable, 81 were three‐piece inflatable and 30 were self‐contained hydraulic prostheses. The mean (range) age of the men was 52 (21–78) years; 404 men had primary implants and 43 had revision surgery after operations at other institutions. The mean follow‐up was 50 (1–297) months. RESULTS: Of the 447 men, 22 were lost to follow‐up immediately after surgery. The most serious postoperative complications were infection (8%) and erosion (5%), which was more common in diabetic patients (10%) and after pelvic trauma with a urethral injury (21%). Of 482 prostheses, 21 failed mechanically (4%) and revision surgery was needed for 5% of the prostheses inserted (24/482). Overall, 89% (377/425) of men could have sexual intercourse and 344 (81%) were satisfied with the results. CONCLUSIONS: Of the men implanted with a penile prosthesis, 81% were satisfied with the outcome and an even higher proportion were satisfied with the inflatable prostheses. Dissatisfaction was mainly due to complications that resulted in removal of the prosthesis.

1 May 2011 in Journal of Urology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
AMAndrea Minervini
Andrea Minervini
VFVincenzo Ficarra
Vincenzo Ficarra
FRFrancesco Rocco
Francesco Rocco
Alessandro AntonelliAlessandro Antonelli
Alessandro Antonelli
RBRoberto Bertini
Roberto Bertini
MFMembers Of The Saturn Project–Luna Foundation
Members Of The Saturn Project–Luna Foundation
The excision of the renal tumor with a substantial margin of healthy parenchyma is considered the gold standard technique for partial nephrectomy. However, simple enucleation showed excellent results in some retrospective series. We compared the oncologic outcomes after standard partial nephrectomy and simple enucleation. We retrospectively analyzed 982 patients who underwent standard partial nephrectomy and 537 who had simple enucleation for localized renal cell carcinoma at 16 academic centers between 1997 and 2007. Local recurrence, cancer specific survival and progression-free survival were the main outcomes of this study. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate survival functions and differences were assessed with the log rank statistic. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression models addressed progression-free survival and cancer specific survival. Median followup of the patients undergoing traditional partial nephrectomy and simple enucleation was 51 ± 37.8 and 54.4 ± 36 months, respectively (p = 0.08). The 5 and 10-year progression-free survival estimates were 88.9 and 82% after standard partial nephrectomy, and 91.4% and 90.8% after simple enucleation (p = 0.09). The 5 and 10-year cancer specific survival estimates were 93.9% and 91.6% after standard partial nephrectomy, and 94.3% and 93.2% after simple enucleation (p = 0.94). On multivariable analysis the adopted nephron sparing surgery technique was not an independent predictor of progression-free survival (HR 0.8, p = 0.55) and cancer specific survival (HR 0.7, p = 0.53) when adjusted for the effect of the other covariates. To our knowledge this is the first multicenter, comparative study showing oncologic equivalence of standard partial nephrectomy and simple enucleation.

1 June 2009 in European Urology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
AMAndrea Minervini
Andrea Minervini
CCClaudio Di Cristofano
Claudio Di Cristofano
ALAlberto Lapini
Alberto Lapini
MMMarco Marchi
Marco Marchi
FLFederico Lanzi
Federico Lanzi
MCMarco Carini
Marco Carini

29 December 2015 in Urology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
FPFrancesco Porpiglia
Francesco Porpiglia
Andrea MariAndrea Mari
Andrea Mari
Riccardo BertoloRiccardo Bertolo
Riccardo Bertolo
Alessandro AntonelliAlessandro Antonelli
Alessandro Antonelli
GBGiampaolo Bianchi
Giampaolo Bianchi
AMAndrea Minervini
Andrea Minervini

4 June 2021 in BJU International
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
Alessandro AntonelliAlessandro Antonelli
Alessandro Antonelli
LCLuca Cindolo
Luca Cindolo
Marco SandriMarco Sandri
Marco Sandri
AVAlessandro Veccia
Alessandro Veccia
FAFilippo Annino
Filippo Annino
TSthe AGILE Group (Italian Group for Advanced Laparo‐Endoscopic Surgery)
the AGILE Group (Italian Group for Advanced Laparo‐Endoscopic Surgery)

1 March 2021 in European Urology Focus
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
CBCarlo Bravi
Carlo Bravi
ALAlessandro Larcher
Alessandro Larcher
UCUmberto Capitanio
Umberto Capitanio
Andrea MariAndrea Mari
Andrea Mari
Alessandro AntonelliAlessandro Antonelli
Alessandro Antonelli
AMAndrea Minervini
Andrea Minervini