Literature DB >> 20188381

Comparative effectiveness of prostate cancer surgical treatments: a population based analysis of postoperative outcomes.

William T Lowrance1, Elena B Elkin, Lindsay M Jacks, David S Yee, Thomas L Jang, Vincent P Laudone, Bertrand D Guillonneau, Peter T Scardino, James A Eastham.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Enthusiasm for laparoscopic surgical approaches to prostate cancer treatment has grown despite limited evidence of improved outcomes compared with open radical prostatectomy. We compared laparoscopic prostatectomy with or without robotic assistance vs open radical prostatectomy in terms of postoperative outcomes and subsequent cancer directed therapy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using a population based cancer registry linked with Medicare claims we identified men 66 years old or older with localized prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy from 2003 to 2005. Outcome measures were general medical/surgical complications and mortality within 90 days after surgery, genitourinary/bowel complications within 365 days, radiation therapy and/or androgen deprivation therapy within 365 days and length of hospital stay.
RESULTS: Of the 5,923 men 18% underwent laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Adjusting for patient and tumor characteristics, there were no differences in the rate of general medical/surgical complications (OR 0.93 95% CI 0.77-1.14) or genitourinary/bowel complications (OR 0.96 95% CI 0.76-1.22), or in postoperative radiation and/or androgen deprivation (OR 0.80 95% CI 0.60-1.08). Laparoscopic prostatectomy was associated with a 35% shorter hospital stay (p <0.0001) and a lower bladder neck/urethral obstruction rate (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.58-0.94). In laparoscopic cases surgeon volume was inversely associated with hospital stay and the odds of any genitourinary/bowel complication.
CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic prostatectomy and open radical prostatectomy have similar rates of postoperative morbidity and additional treatment. Men considering prostate cancer surgery should understand the expected benefits and risks of each technique to facilitate decision making and set realistic expectations. Copyright (c) 2010 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20188381      PMCID: PMC2866516          DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.12.021

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  23 in total

1.  Robotically-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  J Binder; W Kramer
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 5.588

2.  [Remote laparoscopic radical prostatectomy carried out with a robot. Report of a case].

Authors:  C C Abbou; A Hoznek; L Salomon; A Lobontiu; F Saint; A Cicco; P Antiphon; D Chopin
Journal:  Prog Urol       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 0.915

3.  Perioperative complications of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Montsouris 3-year experience.

Authors:  Bertrand Guillonneau; François Rozet; Xavier Cathelineau; Frank Lay; Eric Barret; Jean-Dominique Doublet; Hervé Baumert; Guy Vallancien
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 7.450

4.  Overview of the SEER-Medicare data: content, research applications, and generalizability to the United States elderly population.

Authors:  Joan L Warren; Carrie N Klabunde; Deborah Schrag; Peter B Bach; Gerald F Riley
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 2.983

5.  Current status of robotic prostatectomy: promises fulfilled.

Authors:  Raj S Pruthi; Eric M Wallen
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2009-04-15       Impact factor: 7.450

6.  Patterns of care for radical prostatectomy in the United States from 2003 to 2005.

Authors:  Jim C Hu; Nathanael D Hevelone; Marcos D Ferreira; Stuart R Lipsitz; Toni K Choueiri; Martin G Sanda; Craig C Earle
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2008-09-17       Impact factor: 7.450

7.  Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Montsouris experience.

Authors:  B Guillonneau; G Vallancien
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation.

Authors:  M E Charlson; P Pompei; K L Ales; C R MacKenzie
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1987

9.  Variations in morbidity after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Colin B Begg; Elyn R Riedel; Peter B Bach; Michael W Kattan; Deborah Schrag; Joan L Warren; Peter T Scardino
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2002-04-11       Impact factor: 91.245

10.  Assessing comorbidity using claims data: an overview.

Authors:  Carrie N Klabunde; Joan L Warren; Julie M Legler
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 2.983

View more
  29 in total

1.  A cost analysis of radical prostatectomies: Will it ever be possible?

Authors:  Eric P Estey
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 1.862

Review 2.  Evidence-based comparison of robotic and open radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  William T Lowrance; Tatum V Tarin; Shahrokh F Shariat
Journal:  ScientificWorldJournal       Date:  2010-11-16

Review 3.  Comparative effectiveness research in urology.

Authors:  Amy T Wang; Jeffrey K Wang; Victor M Montori; Mohammad Hassan Murad
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2010-12-28       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 4.  Quality of evidence to compare outcomes of open and robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy.

Authors:  Branden Duffey; Briony Varda; Badrinath Konety
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 3.092

5.  Surgery: Robotic prostatectomy proven to provide sexual outcome benefit.

Authors:  Jason D Engel
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2011-07-08       Impact factor: 14.432

6.  Diffusion of surgical innovations, patient safety, and minimally invasive radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  J Kellogg Parsons; Karen Messer; Kerrin Palazzi; Sean P Stroup; David Chang
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 14.766

7.  Benchmarks for operative outcomes of robotic and open radical prostatectomy: results from the Health Professionals Follow-up Study.

Authors:  Mehrdad Alemozaffar; Martin Sanda; Derek Yecies; Lorelei A Mucci; Meir J Stampfer; Stacey A Kenfield
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2014-02-11       Impact factor: 20.096

8.  Preoperative prognostic factors for biochemical recurrence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in Japan.

Authors:  Takeshi Hashimoto; Kunihiko Yoshioka; Tatsuo Gondo; Choichiro Ozu; Yutaka Horiguchi; Kazunori Namiki; Yoshio Ohno; Makoto Ohori; Jun Nakashima; Masaaki Tachibana
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2013-09-19       Impact factor: 3.402

9.  Robotic-assisted paraesophageal hernia repair--a case-control study.

Authors:  Tobias Gehrig; A Mehrabi; L Fischer; H Kenngott; U Hinz; C N Gutt; Beat P Müller-Stich
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2012-07-31       Impact factor: 3.445

10.  Biochemical outcomes after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in patients with follow-up more than 5-years.

Authors:  Kwang Hyun Kim; Sey Kiat Lim; Tae-Young Shin; Byung Ha Chung; Sung Joon Hong; Koon Ho Rha
Journal:  Asian J Androl       Date:  2013-03-25       Impact factor: 3.285

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.