Daniele Mattevi

Dr. Daniele Mattevi

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

11Years (2016-Present)

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

Representative Publications

View All Publications
20 December 2016 in Journal of Robotic Surgery
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
LLLorenzo G Luciani
Lorenzo G Luciani
SCStefano Chiodini
Stefano Chiodini
DMDaniele Mattevi
Daniele Mattevi
Tommaso CaiTommaso Cai
Tommaso Cai
MPMarco Puglisi
Marco Puglisi
GMGianni Malossini
Gianni Malossini

1 June 2020 in Urology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
LLLorenzo Giuseppe Luciani
Lorenzo Giuseppe Luciani
DMDaniele Mattevi
Daniele Mattevi
Tommaso CaiTommaso Cai
Tommaso Cai
GGGuido Giusti
Guido Giusti
SPSilvia Proietti
Silvia Proietti
GMGianni Malossini
Gianni Malossini

9 August 2018 in Journal of Robotic Surgery
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
DMDaniele Mattevi
Daniele Mattevi
LLLorenzo G Luciani
Lorenzo G Luciani
WMW. Mantovani
W. Mantovani
Tommaso CaiTommaso Cai
Tommaso Cai
SCS. Chiodini
S. Chiodini
GMG. Malossini
G. Malossini

8 May 2018 in Journal of Robotic Surgery
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
APAntonio B. Porcaro
Antonio B. Porcaro
MSMarco Sebben
Marco Sebben
ATAlessandro Tafuri
Alessandro Tafuri
NLNicolò de Luyk
Nicolò de Luyk
PCPaolo Corsi
Paolo Corsi
WAWalter Artibani
Walter Artibani

1 November 2017 in Current Urology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
LLLorenzo G Luciani
Lorenzo G Luciani
DMDaniele Mattevi
Daniele Mattevi
WMWilliam Mantovani
William Mantovani
Tommaso CaiTommaso Cai
Tommaso Cai
SCStefano Chiodini
Stefano Chiodini
GMGianni Malossini
Gianni Malossini
Background: To compare the surgical outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP) performed via 3 different approaches: retropubic (RRP), laparoscopic-assisted (LRP), and robot-assisted (RARP), in a single non-academic regional center by a single surgeon. Materials and Methods: The data of patients undergoing RP from 2005 to 2014 were reviewed. The standard approach changed through the years: RRP (n = 380, years 2005 to 2008), LRP (n = 240, years 2009 to 2011), and RARP (n = 262, years 2012 to 2014). Our analysis included the last consecutive 100 RP for each surgical technique by a single surgeon. A logistic regression model adjusted for pre-and postoperative variables was done to evaluate whether transfusion, conversion, and post-operative complication rates were influenced by the approach. Results: RARP was associated with significantly lower blood loss (400 vs. 600 and 600 ml, respectively), transfusion (6 vs. 21 and 21%, respectively), and shorter hospital stay (6 vs. 7 and 8 days, respectively), compared to LRP and RRP, and a lower conversion rate (1 vs. 12%) compared to LRP. Multivariate analysis adjusted for confounders confirmed that the risk of transfusion and conversion was significantly lower in the RARP group compared to the LRP and RRP groups. The RARP group was also associated with a significantly lower risk of complications compared to the RRP group and with a trend in favor of the RARP group compared to the LRP group. The 1-year continence rate was significantly higher in the RARP group compared to the RRP and LRP groups (80 vs. 72 and 68%, respectively). Conclusion: The surgical approach affected the operative outcomes in a regional setting. The advantages of RARP over RRP (complications, transfusion, conversion, hospital stay, 1-year continence) were over LRP as well, with the only exception being complications.

1 August 2017 in Current Urology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
APAntonio B. Porcaro
Antonio B. Porcaro
Salvatore SiracusanoSalvatore Siracusano
Salvatore Siracusano
NLNicolò de Luyk
Nicolò de Luyk
PCPaolo Corsi
Paolo Corsi
MSMarco Sebben
Marco Sebben
WAWalter Artibani
Walter Artibani
Objective: To identify significant clinical factors associated with prostate cancer (PCa) upgrading the low-risk PCa patients graded according to the modified Gleason score system. Materials and Methods: The logistic regression model was used to evaluate the records of 438 patients. Results: There were 170 cases (38.8%) of low-risk PCa and tumors were upgraded in 111 patients (65.3%). Only prostate specific antigen (PSA) and the proportion of positive cores (P+) were independent predictors of tumor upgrading. Further exploration was investigated by categorizing and regressing PSA (≤ 5.0 vs. > 5.0 ng/ml) and P+ (≤ 0.20 vs. > 0.20). The odds ratio of PSA > 5 ng/ml was 1.32 and of P+ > 0.20 was 2.71. The population was stratified into very low-risk with PSA ≤ 5 ng/ml and P+ ≤ 0.20 (class A), low-risk with PSA > 5 ng/ml and P+ ≤ 0.20 (class B), intermediate risk with PSA ≤ 5 ng/ml and P+ > 0.20 (class C), and high risk with PSA > 5 ng/ml and P+ 0.20 (class D). Upgrading rates were extremely low in class A (9%), extremely high in D (50.5%), and moderate (20%) in B and C. Conclusion: Patients diagnosed with low-risk PCa at biopsy are a heterogeneous population because they include subsets with undetected high-grade disease. Significant clinical predictors of upgrading include the PSA value and P+. In low-risk PCa, we identified a high-risk upgrading subgroup that needed repeat biopsies in order to reclassify the tumor grade and to reassess the clinical risk category.