Literature DB >> 21035248

A prospective trial comparing consecutive series of open retropubic and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in a centre with a limited caseload.

Giovanni B Di Pierro1, Philipp Baumeister, Patrick Stucki, Josef Beatrice, Hansjörg Danuser, Agostino Mattei.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RALP) is performed worldwide, even in institutions with limited caseloads. However, although the results of large RALP series are available, oncologic and functional outcomes as well as complications from low-caseload centres are lacking.
OBJECTIVE: To compare perioperative, oncologic, and functional outcomes from two consecutive series of patients with localised prostate cancer treated by retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) or recently established RALP in our hospital, which has a limited caseload. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: One hundred fifty consecutive patients were enrolled. Their data and outcomes were collected and extensively evaluated. INTERVENTION: Seventy-five consecutive patients underwent RRP, and 75 consecutive patients underwent RALP, including all patients of the learning curve. MEASUREMENTS: Patient baseline characteristics, perioperative and postoperative outcomes, and complications were evaluated. End points were oncologic data (positive margins, prostate-specific antigen [PSA]), perioperative complications, urinary continence, and erectile function at 3- and 12-mo follow-up. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The preoperative parameters from the two groups were comparable. The positive surgical margin (PSM) rates were 32% for RRP and 16% for RALP (p=0.002). For RRP and RALP, the PSA value was <0.2 ng/ml in 91% and 88% of patients 3 mo postoperatively (p=0.708) and in 87% and 89% of patients 12 mo postoperatively (p=0.36), respectively. Continence rates for RRP and RALP were 83% and 95% at 3-mo follow-up (p=0.003) and 80% and 89% after 12-mo follow-up (p=0.092), respectively. Among patients who were potent without phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5-I) before RRP and RALP, recovery of erectile function with and without PDE5-Is was achieved in 25% (12 of 49 patients) and 68% (25 of 37 patients) 3 mo postoperatively (p=0.009) and in 26% (12 of 47 patients) and 55% (12 of 22 patients) 12 mo postoperatively (p=0.009), respectively. Minimal follow-up for RRP was 12 mo; median follow-up for the RALP group was 12 mo (range: 3-12). According to the modified Clavien system, major complication rates for RRP and RALP were 28% and 7% (p=0.025), respectively; minor complication rates were 24% and 35% (p=0.744), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite a limited caseload and including the learning curve, RALP offers slightly better results than RRP in terms of PSM, major complications, urinary continence, and erectile function.
Copyright © 2010 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21035248     DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2010.10.026

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Urol        ISSN: 0302-2838            Impact factor:   20.096


  36 in total

1.  [Radical prostatectomy - pro robotic].

Authors:  R Gillitzer
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 2.  Robot-assisted prostatectomy: the new standard of care.

Authors:  Gencay Hatiboglu; Dogu Teber; Markus Hohenfellner
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2011-02-02       Impact factor: 3.445

3.  Learning curve assessment of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared with open-surgery controls from the premier perspective database.

Authors:  John W Davis; Usha S Kreaden; Jessica Gabbert; Raju Thomas
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2014-02-06       Impact factor: 2.942

4.  Comparison of oncological outcomes between retropubic radical prostatectomy and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: an analysis stratified by surgical experience.

Authors:  Jinsung Park; Dae-Seon Yoo; Cheryn Song; Sahyun Park; Sejun Park; Seong Cheol Kim; Yongmee Cho; Hanjong Ahn
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2013-09-24       Impact factor: 4.226

5.  [Oncological and functional results of open intrafascial radical prostatectomy].

Authors:  W Y Khoder; A Buchner; S Siegert; C G Stief; B Schlenker
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 6.  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

7.  Cost-effectiveness analysis of robotic-assisted versus retropubic radical prostatectomy: a single cancer center experience.

Authors:  Renato Almeida Rosa de Oliveira; Gustavo Cardoso Guimarães; Thiago Camelo Mourão; Ricardo de Lima Favaretto; Thiago Borges Marques Santana; Ademar Lopes; Stenio de Cassio Zequi
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2021-01-08

8.  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

9.  Comparison of continence recovery between robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy and open radical retropubic prostatectomy: a single surgeon experience.

Authors:  Seung Jun Son; Sang Chul Lee; Chang Wook Jeong; Seong Jin Jeong; Seok Soo Byun; Sang Eun Lee
Journal:  Korean J Urol       Date:  2013-09-10

10.  A case-mix-adjusted comparison of early oncological outcomes of open and robotic prostatectomy performed by experienced high volume surgeons.

Authors:  Jonathan L Silberstein; Daniel Su; Leonard Glickman; Matthew Kent; Gal Keren-Paz; Andrew J Vickers; Jonathan A Coleman; James A Eastham; Peter T Scardino; Vincent P Laudone
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 5.588

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.