Literature DB >> 24350787

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

John W Davis1, Usha S Kreaden, Jessica Gabbert, Raju Thomas.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The primary aims of this study were to assess the learning curve effect of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in a large administrative database consisting of multiple U.S. hospitals and surgeons, and to compare the results of RARP with open radical prostatectomy (ORP) from the same settings.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The patient population of study was from the Premier Perspective Database (Premier, Inc., Charlotte, NC) and consisted of 71,312 radical prostatectomies performed at more than 300 U.S. hospitals by up to 3739 surgeons by open or robotic techniques from 2004 to 2010. The key endpoints were surgery time, inpatient length of stay, and overall complications. We compared open versus robotic, results by year of procedures, results by case volume of specific surgeons, and results of open surgery in hospitals with and without a robotic system.
RESULTS: The mean surgery time was longer for RARP (4.4 hours, standard deviation [SD] 1.7) compared with ORP (3.4 hours, SD 1.5) in the same hospitals (p<0.0001). Inpatient stay was shorter for RARP (2.2 days, SD 1.9) compared with ORP (3.2 days, SD 2.7) in the same hospitals (p<0.0001). The overall complications were less for RARP (10.6%) compared with ORP (15.8%) in the same hospitals, as were transfusion rates. ORP results in hospitals without a robot were not better than ORP with a robot, and pretreatment co-morbidity profiles were similar in all cohorts. Trending of results by year of procedure showed no differences in the three cohorts, but trending of RARP results by surgeon experience showed improvements in surgery time, hospital stay, conversion rates, and complication rates.
CONCLUSIONS: During the initial 7 years of RARP development, outcomes showed decreased hospital stay, complications, and transfusion rates. Learning curve trends for RARP were evident for these endpoints when grouped by surgeon experience, but not by year of surgery.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24350787      PMCID: PMC3995359          DOI: 10.1089/end.2013.0534

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Endourol        ISSN: 0892-7790            Impact factor:   2.942


  24 in total

1.  Successful transfer of open surgical skills to a laparoscopic environment using a robotic interface: initial experience with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Thomas E Ahlering; Douglas Skarecky; David Lee; Ralph V Clayman
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 7.450

2.  The new economics of radical prostatectomy: cost comparison of open, laparoscopic and robot assisted techniques.

Authors:  Yair Lotan; Jeffrey A Cadeddu; Matthew T Gettman
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 3.  Robotic surgery in urology: fact or fantasy?

Authors:  Jochen Binder; Ronald Bräutigam; Dietger Jonas; Wassilios Bentas
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 5.588

4.  Local cost structures and the economics of robot assisted radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Charles D Scales; Peter J Jones; Eric L Eisenstein; Glenn M Preminger; David M Albala
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 7.450

5.  Prospective comparison of radical retropubic prostatectomy and robot-assisted anatomic prostatectomy: the Vattikuti Urology Institute experience.

Authors:  Mani Menon; Ashutosh Tewari; Brad Baize; Bertrand Guillonneau; Guy Vallancien
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 2.649

6.  Robotic radical prostatectomy in the community setting--the learning curve and beyond: initial 200 cases.

Authors:  Vipul R Patel; A S Tully; R Holmes; J Lindsay
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 7.450

7.  Clinical and economic outcomes in thrombolytic treatment of peripheral arterial occlusive disease and deep venous thrombosis.

Authors:  Kenneth Ouriel; Alan F Kaul; Mandy C Leonard
Journal:  J Vasc Surg       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 4.268

8.  A prospective comparison of radical retropubic and robot-assisted prostatectomy: experience in one institution.

Authors:  A Tewari; A Srivasatava; M Menon
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 5.588

9.  Impact of minimally invasive surgery on medical spending and employee absenteeism.

Authors:  Andrew J Epstein; Peter W Groeneveld; Michael O Harhay; Feifei Yang; Daniel Polsky
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 14.766

10.  Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey.

Authors:  Daniel Dindo; Nicolas Demartines; Pierre-Alain Clavien
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 12.969

View more
  11 in total

1.  SAGES TAVAC safety and effectiveness analysis: da Vinci ® Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA).

Authors:  Shawn Tsuda; Dmitry Oleynikov; Jon Gould; Dan Azagury; Bryan Sandler; Matthew Hutter; Sharona Ross; Eric Haas; Fred Brody; Richard Satava
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-07-24       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 2.  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

3.  Robotic or open radical prostatectomy after previous open surgery in the pelvic region.

Authors:  Mahmoud Mustafa; Curtis A Pettaway; John W Davis; Louis Pisters
Journal:  Korean J Urol       Date:  2015-02-05

Review 4.  Learning curves in laparoscopic and robot-assisted prostate surgery: a systematic search and review.

Authors:  Nikolaos Grivas; Ioannis Zachos; Georgios Georgiadis; Markos Karavitakis; Vasilis Tzortzis; Charalampos Mamoulakis
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2021-09-04       Impact factor: 3.661

5.  Pandemic's cancer backlogs receive treatment from AI innovation.

Authors:  Bianca Nogrady
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2022-10       Impact factor: 69.504

6.  Beyond 2D telestration: an evaluation of novel proctoring tools for robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery.

Authors:  Anthony M Jarc; Swar H Shah; Troy Adebar; Eric Hwang; Monish Aron; Inderbir S Gill; Andrew J Hung
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2016-02-25

7.  Robot-assisted surgery in a broader healthcare perspective: a difference-in-difference-based cost analysis of a national prostatectomy cohort.

Authors:  Vibe Bolvig Hyldgård; Karin Rosenkilde Laursen; Johan Poulsen; Rikke Søgaard
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-07-21       Impact factor: 2.692

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

Review 9.  Systematic review of learning curves in robot-assisted surgery.

Authors:  N A Soomro; D A Hashimoto; A J Porteous; C J A Ridley; W J Marsh; R Ditto; S Roy
Journal:  BJS Open       Date:  2019-11-29

10.  Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy learning curve for experienced laparoscopic surgeons: does it really exist?

Authors:  Marcos Tobias-Machado; Anuar Ibrahim Mitre; Mauricio Rubinstein; Eduardo Fernandes da Costa; Alexandre Kyoshi Hidaka
Journal:  Int Braz J Urol       Date:  2016 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 1.541

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.