Literature DB >> 22215756

Adverse effects of robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus open retropubic radical prostatectomy among a nationwide random sample of medicare-age men.

Michael J Barry1, Patricia M Gallagher, Jonathan S Skinner, Floyd J Fowler.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is eclipsing open radical prostatectomy among men with clinically localized prostate cancer. The objective of this study was to compare the risks of problems with continence and sexual function following these procedures among Medicare-age men. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A population-based random sample was drawn from the 20% Medicare claims files for August 1, 2008, through December 31, 2008. Participants had hospital and physician claims for radical prostatectomy and diagnostic codes for prostate cancer and reported undergoing either a robotic or open surgery. They received a mail survey that included self-ratings of problems with continence and sexual function a median of 14 months postoperatively.
RESULTS: Completed surveys were obtained from 685 (86%) of 797 eligible participants, and 406 and 220 patients reported having had robotic or open surgery, respectively. Overall, 189 (31.1%; 95% CI, 27.5% to 34.8%) of 607 men reported having a moderate or big problem with continence, and 522 (88.0%; 95% CI, 85.4% to 90.6%) of 593 men reported having a moderate or big problem with sexual function. In logistic regression models predicting the log odds of a moderate or big problem with postoperative continence and adjusting for age and educational level, robotic prostatectomy was associated with a nonsignificant trend toward greater problems with continence (odds ratio [OR] 1.41; 95% CI, 0.97 to 2.05). Robotic prostatectomy was not associated with greater problems with sexual function (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.51 to 1.49).
CONCLUSION: Risks of problems with continence and sexual function are high after both procedures. Medicare-age men should not expect fewer adverse effects following robotic prostatectomy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22215756      PMCID: PMC3295553          DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2011.36.8621

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0732-183X            Impact factor:   44.544


  24 in total

1.  Correlates of bother following treatment for clinically localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  John L Gore; Kiran Gollapudi; Jonathan Bergman; Lorna Kwan; Tracey L Krupski; Mark S Litwin
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2010-08-17       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 2.  Downsides of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: limitations and complications.

Authors:  Declan G Murphy; Anders Bjartell; Vincenzo Ficarra; Markus Graefen; Alexander Haese; Rodolfo Montironi; Francesco Montorsi; Judd W Moul; Giacomo Novara; Guido Sauter; Tullio Sulser; Henk van der Poel
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2009-12-28       Impact factor: 20.096

3.  Robotic prostatectomy.

Authors:  Jeffrey A Cadeddu; Gagan Gautam; Arieh L Shalhav
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2010-01-20       Impact factor: 7.450

4.  Robotic surgery.

Authors:  Adam Jones; Krishna Sethia
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 1.891

Review 5.  Economics of robotics in urology.

Authors:  Yair Lotan
Journal:  Curr Opin Urol       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 2.309

6.  Robotic prostatectomy: hit or myth?

Authors:  Peter T Scardino
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 14.432

7.  Low annual caseloads of United States surgeons conducting radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Caroline J Savage; Andrew J Vickers
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  Cost comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and open radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Christian Bolenz; Amit Gupta; Timothy Hotze; Richard Ho; Jeffrey A Cadeddu; Claus G Roehrborn; Yair Lotan
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2009-11-11       Impact factor: 20.096

9.  Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Jim C Hu; Xiangmei Gu; Stuart R Lipsitz; Michael J Barry; Anthony V D'Amico; Aaron C Weinberg; Nancy L Keating
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2009-10-14       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  The surgical learning curve for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Andrew J Vickers; Caroline J Savage; Marcel Hruza; Ingolf Tuerk; Philippe Koenig; Luis Martínez-Piñeiro; Gunther Janetschek; Bertrand Guillonneau
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2009-04-01       Impact factor: 41.316

View more
  47 in total

1.  Factors determining biochemical recurrence in low-risk prostate cancer patients who underwent radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Sıtkı Ün; Hakan Türk; Osman Koca; Rauf Taner Divrik; Ferruh Zorlu
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2015-06

2.  Psychosocial mechanisms of a behavioral treatment for urinary incontinence of prostate cancer survivors.

Authors:  Amy Y Zhang; Christopher Burant; Alex Z Fu; Gerald Strauss; Donald R Bodner; Lee Ponsky
Journal:  J Psychosoc Oncol       Date:  2019-11-24

3.  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

4.  Autologous retro-pubic urethral sling: a novel, quick, intra-operative technique to improve continence after robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Sanoj Punnen; K Clint Cary; Allison S Glass; Janet E Cowan; Peter R Carroll
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2013-08-15

Review 5.  Short-, Intermediate-, and Long-term Quality of Life Outcomes Following Radical Prostatectomy for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Vinay Prabhu; Ted Lee; Tyler R McClintock; Herbert Lepor
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2013

Review 6.  The Effect of LUTS/BPH and Treatments on Ejaculatory Function.

Authors:  Michelle Herberts; Michael Butcher; Tobias Köhler
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 3.092

7.  [Minimally invasive vs. open surgical procedures in the treatment of prostate cancer].

Authors:  M Wirth; M Fröhner
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 0.639

8.  Focal Ablation of Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Herbert Lepor
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2018

9.  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

10.  Patient-Reported Outcomes after Monitoring, Surgery, or Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  J L Donovan; F C Hamdy; J A Lane; D E Neal; M Mason; C Metcalfe; E Walsh; J M Blazeby; T J Peters; P Holding; S Bonnington; T Lennon; L Bradshaw; D Cooper; P Herbert; J Howson; A Jones; N Lyons; E Salter; P Thompson; S Tidball; J Blaikie; C Gray; P Bollina; J Catto; A Doble; A Doherty; D Gillatt; R Kockelbergh; H Kynaston; A Paul; P Powell; S Prescott; D J Rosario; E Rowe; M Davis; E L Turner; R M Martin
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2016-09-14       Impact factor: 91.245

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.