Literature DB >> 24062092

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

Jinsung Park1, Dae-Seon Yoo, Cheryn Song, Sahyun Park, Sejun Park, Seong Cheol Kim, Yongmee Cho, Hanjong Ahn.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To compare oncological outcomes of a consecutive retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) series performed by a single surgeon who had performed >750 prior RRPs and was starting to perform RARPs.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospectively collected longitudinal data of 277 RRP and 730 RARP cases over a 5-year period were retrospectively analyzed. The RARP series were divided into 3 subgroups (1st, <250 cases; 2nd, 250-500; and 3rd, >500) according to the surgical period. The positive surgical margin (PSM) and biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCRFS) rates were compared at each pathological stage.
RESULTS: The pT2 PSM rates showed no significant difference between the RRP (7.8%) and RARP series (1st, 9.5%; 2nd, 14.1%; and 3rd, 9.8%) throughout the study period (P = 0.689, 0.079, and 0.688, respectively). Although the pT3 PSM rates of the 1st (50.6%) and 2nd RARP series (50.0%) were higher than that of the RRP series (36.0%; P = 0.044 and P = 0.069, respectively), the 3rd RARP series had a comparable pT3 PSM rate (32.4%, P = 0.641). The 3-year BCRFS rates of the RRP and RARP series were similar at each pathological stage (pT2, 92.1 vs. 96.8%, P = 0.517; pT3, 60.0 vs. 67.3%, P = 0.265, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: The pT2 PSM and short-term BCRFS rates were similar between RRP and RARP, and RARP showed comparable pT3 PSM rate with RRP after >500 cases of surgical experience. Our data suggest that an experienced robotic surgeon at a high-volume center may achieve comparable oncological outcomes with open prostatectomy even in locally advanced disease.

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24062092     DOI: 10.1007/s00345-013-1168-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Urol        ISSN: 0724-4983            Impact factor:   4.226


  29 in total

Review 1.  Positive surgical margin and perioperative complication rates of primary surgical treatments for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing retropubic, laparoscopic, and robotic prostatectomy.

Authors:  Ashutosh Tewari; Prasanna Sooriakumaran; Daniel A Bloch; Usha Seshadri-Kreaden; April E Hebert; Peter Wiklund
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2012-02-24       Impact factor: 20.096

2.  Open vs. robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: a single surgeon and pathologist comparison of pathologic and oncologic outcomes.

Authors:  Timothy A Masterson; Liang Cheng; Ronald S Boris; Michael O Koch
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2012-01-04       Impact factor: 3.498

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

Authors:  Giovanni B Di Pierro; Philipp Baumeister; Patrick Stucki; Josef Beatrice; Hansjörg Danuser; Agostino Mattei
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2010-10-21       Impact factor: 20.096

4.  Robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus radical retropubic prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer: comparison of short-term biochemical recurrence-free survival.

Authors:  Daniel A Barocas; Shady Salem; Yakup Kordan; S Duke Herrell; Sam S Chang; Peter E Clark; Rodney Davis; Roxelyn Baumgartner; Sharon Phillips; Michael S Cookson; Joseph A Smith
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2010-01-18       Impact factor: 7.450

5.  Improvements in robot-assisted prostatectomy: the effect of surgeon experience and technical changes on oncologic and functional outcomes.

Authors:  David B Samadi; Paul Muntner; Fatima Nabizada-Pace; Jonathan S Brajtbord; John Carlucci; Hugh J Lavery
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 2.942

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

Authors:  Michael J Barry; Patricia M Gallagher; Jonathan S Skinner; Floyd J Fowler
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-01-03       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  Learning curve for robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: a multi-institutional study of 3794 patients.

Authors:  P Sooriakumaran; M John; P Wiklund; D Lee; A Nilsson; A K Tewari
Journal:  Minerva Urol Nefrol       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 3.720

8.  Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: functional and pathologic outcomes with interfascial nerve preservation.

Authors:  Kevin C Zorn; Ofer N Gofrit; Marcelo A Orvieto; Albert A Mikhail; Gregory P Zagaja; Arieh L Shalhav
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2006-10-27       Impact factor: 20.096

9.  How does robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) compare with open surgery in men with high-risk prostate cancer?

Authors:  Sanoj Punnen; Maxwell V Meng; Matthew R Cooperberg; Kirsten L Greene; Janet E Cowan; Peter R Carroll
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2013-03-04       Impact factor: 5.588

10.  Continued improvement of perioperative, pathological and continence outcomes during 700 robot-assisted radical prostatectomies.

Authors:  Kevin C Zorn; Mark A Wille; Alan E Thong; Mark H Katz; Sergey A Shikanov; Aria Razmaria; Ofer N Gofrit; Gregory P Zagaja; Arieh L Shalhav
Journal:  Can J Urol       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 1.344

View more
  11 in total

1.  Intraoperative frozen section monitoring during nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy: evaluation of partial secondary resection of neurovascular bundles and its effect on oncologic and functional outcome.

Authors:  Georgios Hatzichristodoulou; Stefan Wagenpfeil; Gregor Weirich; Michael Autenrieth; Tobias Maurer; Mark Thalgott; Thomas Horn; Matthias Heck; Kathleen Herkommer; Jürgen E Gschwend; Hubert Kübler
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2015-06-23       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 2.  [Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy].

Authors:  C Thomas; A Neisius; F C Roos; C Hampel; J W Thüroff
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 0.639

3.  Prostatectomies for localized prostate cancer: a mixed comparison network and cumulative meta-analysis.

Authors:  Kannan Sridharan; Gowri Sivaramakrishnan
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2018-02-23

4.  Extended versus limited pelvic lymph node dissection during bilateral nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy and its effect on continence and erectile function recovery: long-term results and trifecta rates of a comparative analysis.

Authors:  Georgios Hatzichristodoulou; Stefan Wagenpfeil; Gudrun Wagenpfeil; Tobias Maurer; Thomas Horn; Kathleen Herkommer; Marie Hegemann; Jürgen E Gschwend; Hubert Kübler
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2015-09-29       Impact factor: 4.226

5.  Robotic surgery in urological oncology: patient care or market share?

Authors:  Deborah R Kaye; Jeffrey K Mullins; H Ballentine Carter; Trinity J Bivalacqua
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2014-12-23       Impact factor: 14.432

6.  Comparative analysis of oncologic outcomes for open vs. robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in high-risk prostate cancer.

Authors:  Donghyun Lee; Seung-Kwon Choi; Jinsung Park; Myungsun Shim; Aram Kim; Sangmi Lee; Cheryn Song; Hanjong Ahn
Journal:  Korean J Urol       Date:  2015-07-29

7.  Changing Patterns of Primary Treatment in Korean Men with Prostate Cancer Over 10 Years: A Nationwide Population Based Study.

Authors:  Jinsung Park; Beomseok Suh; Dong Wook Shin; Jun Hyuk Hong; Hanjong Ahn
Journal:  Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2015-10-20       Impact factor: 4.679

Review 8.  Robotic vs. Retropubic radical prostatectomy in prostate cancer: A systematic review and an meta-analysis update.

Authors:  Kun Tang; Kehua Jiang; Hongbo Chen; Zhiqiang Chen; Hua Xu; Zhangqun Ye
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2017-05-09

9.  Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy significantly reduced biochemical recurrence compared to retro pubic radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Tetsuya Fujimura; Hiroshi Fukuhara; Satoru Taguchi; Yuta Yamada; Toru Sugihara; Tohru Nakagawa; Aya Niimi; Haruki Kume; Yasuhiko Igawa; Yukio Homma
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2017-06-29       Impact factor: 4.430

10.  Level of invasion into fibromuscular band is an independent factor for positive surgical margin and biochemical recurrence in men with organ confined prostate cancer.

Authors:  Aram Kim; Myong Kim; Se Un Jeong; Cheryn Song; Yong Mee Cho; Jae Yoon Ro; Hanjong Ahn
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2018-02-02       Impact factor: 2.264

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.