BACKGROUND: Although robot-assisted laparoscopic radical cystectomy (RARC) was first reported in 2003 and has gained popularity, comparisons with open radical cystectomy (ORC) are limited to reports from high-volume referral centers. OBJECTIVE: To compare population-based perioperative outcomes and costs of ORC and RARC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective observational cohort study using the US Nationwide Inpatient Sample to characterize 2009 RARC compared with ORC use and outcomes. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Propensity score methods were used to compare inpatient morbidity and mortality, lengths of stay, and costs. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: We identified 1444 ORCs and 224 RARCs. Women were less likely to undergo RARC than ORC (9.8% compared with 15.5%, p = 0.048), and 95.7% of RARCs and 73.9% of ORCs were performed at teaching hospitals (p<0.001). In adjusted analyses, subjects undergoing RARC compared with ORC experienced fewer inpatient complications (49.1% and 63.8%, p = 0.035) and fewer deaths (0% and 2.5%, p<0.001). RARC compared with ORC was associated with lower parenteral nutrition use (6.4% and 13.3%, p = 0.046); however, there was no difference in length of stay. RARC compared with ORC was $3797 more costly (p = 0.023). Limitations include retrospective design, absence of tumor characteristics, and lack of outcomes beyond hospital discharge. CONCLUSIONS: RARC is associated with lower parenteral nutrition use and fewer inpatient complications and deaths. However, lengths of stay are similar, and the robotic approach is significantly more costly.
BACKGROUND: Although robot-assisted laparoscopic radical cystectomy (RARC) was first reported in 2003 and has gained popularity, comparisons with open radical cystectomy (ORC) are limited to reports from high-volume referral centers. OBJECTIVE: To compare population-based perioperative outcomes and costs of ORC and RARC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective observational cohort study using the US Nationwide Inpatient Sample to characterize 2009 RARC compared with ORC use and outcomes. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Propensity score methods were used to compare inpatient morbidity and mortality, lengths of stay, and costs. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: We identified 1444 ORCs and 224 RARCs. Women were less likely to undergo RARC than ORC (9.8% compared with 15.5%, p = 0.048), and 95.7% of RARCs and 73.9% of ORCs were performed at teaching hospitals (p<0.001). In adjusted analyses, subjects undergoing RARC compared with ORC experienced fewer inpatient complications (49.1% and 63.8%, p = 0.035) and fewer deaths (0% and 2.5%, p<0.001). RARC compared with ORC was associated with lower parenteral nutrition use (6.4% and 13.3%, p = 0.046); however, there was no difference in length of stay. RARC compared with ORC was $3797 more costly (p = 0.023). Limitations include retrospective design, absence of tumor characteristics, and lack of outcomes beyond hospital discharge. CONCLUSIONS: RARC is associated with lower parenteral nutrition use and fewer inpatient complications and deaths. However, lengths of stay are similar, and the robotic approach is significantly more costly.
Authors: Tudor Borza; Bruce L Jacobs; Jeffrey S Montgomery; Alon Z Weizer; Todd M Morgan; Khaled S Hafez; Cheryl T Lee; Benjamin Y Li; Hye Sung Min; Chang He; Scott M Gilbert; Jonathan E Helm; Mariel S Lavieri; Brent K Hollenbeck; Ted A Skolarus Journal: Urology Date: 2017-03-04 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Ya-Chen Tina Shih; Patricia A Ganz; Denise Aberle; Amy Abernethy; Justin Bekelman; Otis Brawley; James S Goodwin; Jim C Hu; Deborah Schrag; Jennifer S Temel; Lowell Schnipper Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-10-14 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Andrea Necchi; Gregory R Pond; Marc C Smaldone; Sumanta K Pal; Kevin Chan; Yu-Ning Wong; Rosalia Viterbo; Guru Sonpavde; Lauren C Harshman; Simon Crabb; Ajjai Alva; Simon Chowdhury; Ugo De Giorgi; Sandy Srinivas; Neeraj Agarwal; Aristotelis Bamias; Jack Baniel; Ali-Reza Golshayan; Sylvain Ladoire; Cora N Sternberg; Linda Cerbone; Evan Y Yu; Joaquim Bellmunt; Ulka Vaishampayan; Gunter Niegisch; Syed Hussain; Daniel W Bowles; Rafael Morales-Barrera; Matthew I Milowsky; Christine Theodore; Dominik R Berthold; Srikala S Sridhar; Thomas Powles; Jonathan E Rosenberg; Matthew D Galsky Journal: Eur Urol Focus Date: 2017-03-31
Authors: Keiran D Clement; Emily Pearce; Ahmed H Gabr; Bhavan P Rai; Abdulla Al-Ansari; Omar M Aboumarzouk Journal: World J Urol Date: 2020-07-30 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Stuart R Lipsitz; Garrett M Fitzmaurice; Debajyoti Sinha; Nathanael Hevelone; Edward Giovannucci; Jim C Hu Journal: Biometrics Date: 2015-03-11 Impact factor: 2.571