Literature DB >> 22209053

Temporal national trends of minimally invasive and retropubic radical prostatectomy outcomes from 2003 to 2007: results from the 100% Medicare sample.

Keith J Kowalczyk1, Jesse M Levy, Craig F Caplan, Stuart R Lipsitz, Hua-yin Yu, Xiangmei Gu, Jim C Hu.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although the use of minimally invasive radical prostatectomy (MIRP) has increased, there are few comprehensive population-based studies assessing temporal trends and outcomes relative to retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP).
OBJECTIVE: Assess temporal trends in the utilization and outcomes of MIRP and RRP among US Medicare beneficiaries from 2003 to 2007. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A population-based retrospective study of 19 594 MIRP and 58 638 RRP procedures was performed from 2003 to 2007 from the 100% Medicare sample, composed of almost all US men ≥ 65 yr of age. INTERVENTION: MIRP and RRP. MEASUREMENTS: We measured 30-d outcomes (cardiac, respiratory, vascular, genitourinary, miscellaneous medical, miscellaneous surgical, wound complications, blood transfusions, and death), cystography utilization within 6 wk of surgery, and late complications (anastomotic stricture, ureteral complications, rectourethral fistulae, lymphocele, and corrective incontinence surgery). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: From 2003 to 2007, MIRP increased from 4.9% to 44.5% of radical prostatectomies while RRP decreased from 89.4% to 52.9%. MIRP versus RRP subjects were younger (p<0.001) and had fewer comorbidities (p<0.001). Decreased MIRP genitourinary complications (6.2-4.1%; p = 0.002), miscellaneous surgical complications (4.7-3.7%; p=0.030), transfusions (3.5-2.2%; p=0.005), and postoperative cystography utilization (40.3-34.1%; p<0.001) were observed over time. Conversely, overall RRP perioperative complications increased (27.4-32.0%; p<0.001), including an increase in perioperative mortality (0.5-0.8%, p=0.009). Late RRP complications increased, with the exception of fewer anastomotic strictures (10.2-8.8%; p=0.002). In adjusted analyses, RRP versus MIRP was associated with increased 30-d mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 2.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.55-4.59; p<0.001) and more perioperative (OR: 1.60; 95% CI, 1.45-1.76; p<0.001) and late complications (OR: 2.52; 95% CI, 2.20-2.89; p<0.001). Limitations include the inability to distinguish MIRP with versus without robotic assistance and also the lack of pathologic information.
CONCLUSIONS: From 2003 to 2007, there were fewer MIRP transfusions, genitourinary complications, and miscellaneous surgical complications, whereas most RRP perioperative and late complications increased. RRP versus MIRP was associated with more postoperative mortality and complications. Copyright Â
© 2012 European Association of Urology. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22209053     DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.12.020

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


  19 in total

1.  Prostate cancer: Oncological vs functional outcomes for RARP--finding a balance.

Authors:  Jesse D Sammon; Quoc-Dien Trinh
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2013-09-24       Impact factor: 14.432

2.  Intraoperative laparoscopic complications for urological cancer procedures.

Authors:  Sergio Fernández-Pello Montes; Ivan Gonzalez Rodríguez; Rodrigo Gil Ugarteburu; Luis Rodríguez Villamil; Begoña Diaz Mendez; Patricio Suarez Gil; Javier Mosquera Madera
Journal:  World J Clin Cases       Date:  2015-05-16       Impact factor: 1.337

Review 3.  How to minimize lymphoceles and treat clinically symptomatic lymphoceles after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Hak J Lee; Christopher J Kane
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 3.092

4.  Perioperative outcomes and hospital reimbursement by type of radical prostatectomy: results from a privately insured patient population.

Authors:  S P Kim; C P Gross; M C Smaldone; L C Han; H Van Houten; Y Lotan; R S Svatek; R H Thompson; R J Karnes; Q-D Trinh; A Kutikov; N D Shah
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2014-10-14       Impact factor: 5.554

5.  National trends and differences in morbidity among surgical approaches for radical prostatectomy in Germany.

Authors:  Jens Uwe Stolzenburg; Iason Kyriazis; Claus Fahlenbrach; Christian Gilfrich; Christian Günster; Elke Jeschke; Gralf Popken; Lothar Weißbach; Christoph von Zastrow; Hanna Leicht
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2016-03-24       Impact factor: 4.226

6.  Variation in the Use of Open Pyeloplasty, Minimally Invasive Pyeloplasty, and Endopyelotomy for the Treatment of Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction in Adults.

Authors:  Bruce L Jacobs; Julie C Lai; Rachana Seelam; Janet M Hanley; J Stuart Wolf; Brent K Hollenbeck; John M Hollingsworth; Andrew W Dick; Claude M Setodji; Christopher S Saigal
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2017-01-05       Impact factor: 2.942

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.  Novel use of the capio urethral anastomotic suturing device: a 50-case assessment.

Authors:  Elleson A Schurtz; Jhanelle Markes; Mark R Newton; James A Brown
Journal:  Curr Urol       Date:  2014-02-10

Review 9.  Does robotic prostatectomy meet its promise in the management of prostate cancer?

Authors:  Kuo-How Huang; Stacey C Carter; Jim C Hu
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 3.092

10.  Postoperative mortality 90 days after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy and retropubic radical prostatectomy: a nationwide population-based study.

Authors:  Johan Björklund; Yasin Folkvaljon; Alexander Cole; Stefan Carlsson; David Robinson; Stacy Loeb; Pär Stattin; Olof Akre
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2016-02-15       Impact factor: 5.588

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.