Anna Wallerstedt1, Stavros I Tyritzis2, Thordis Thorsteinsdottir3, Stefan Carlsson2, Johan Stranne4, Ove Gustafsson5, Jonas Hugosson4, Anders Bjartell6, Ulrica Wilderäng7, N Peter Wiklund2, Gunnar Steineck8, Eva Haglind9. 1. Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Section of Urology, Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Stockholm, Sweden. Electronic address: anna.wallerstedt@karolinska.se. 2. Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Section of Urology, Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Stockholm, Sweden. 3. Division of Clinical Cancer Epidemiology, Department of Oncology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden; Faculty of Nursing, School of Health Sciences, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland. 4. Department of Urology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden. 5. Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Stockholm, Sweden. 6. Department of Urology, Skåne University Hospital, Lund University, Lund, Sweden. 7. Division of Clinical Cancer Epidemiology, Department of Oncology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. 8. Division of Clinical Cancer Epidemiology, Department of Oncology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden; Department of Oncology and Pathology, Division of Clinical Cancer Epidemiology, Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Stockholm, Sweden. 9. Department of Surgery, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy has become a widespread technique despite a lack of randomised trials showing its superiority over open radical prostatectomy. OBJECTIVE: To compare in-hospital characteristics and patient-reported outcomes at 3 mo between robot-assisted laparoscopic and open retropubic radical prostatectomy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A prospective, controlled trial was performed of all men who underwent radical prostatectomy at 14 participating centres. Validated patient questionnaires were collected at baseline and after 3 mo by independent health-care researchers. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The difference in outcome between the two treatment groups were analysed using logistic regression analysis, with adjustment for identified confounders. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Questionnaires were received from 2506 (95%) patients. The robot-assisted surgery group had less perioperative bleeding (185 vs 683 ml, p<0.001) and shorter hospital stay (3.3 vs 4.1 d, p<0.001) than the open surgery group. Operating time was shorter with the open technique (103 vs 175 min, p<0.001) compared with the robot-assisted technique. Reoperation during initial hospital stay was more frequent after open surgery after adjusting for tumour characteristics and lymph node dissection (1.6% vs 0.7%, odds ratio [OR] 0.31, 95% confidence interval [CI 95%] 0.11-0.90). Men who underwent open surgery were more likely to seek healthcare (for one or more of 22 specified disorders identified prestudy) compared to men in the robot-assisted surgery group (p=0.03). It was more common to seek healthcare for cardiovascular reasons in the open surgery group than in the robot-assisted surgery group, after adjusting for nontumour and tumour-specific confounders, (7.9% vs 5.8%, OR 0.63, CI 95% 0.42-0.94). The readmittance rate was not statistically different between the groups. A limitation of the study is the lack of a standardised tool for the assessment of the adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: This large prospective study confirms previous findings that robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is a safe procedure with some short-term advantages compared to open surgery. Whether these advantages also include long-term morbidity and are related to acceptable costs remain to be studied. PATIENT SUMMARY: We compare patient-reported outcomes between two commonly used surgical techniques. Our results show that the choice of surgical technique may influence short-term outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy has become a widespread technique despite a lack of randomised trials showing its superiority over open radical prostatectomy. OBJECTIVE: To compare in-hospital characteristics and patient-reported outcomes at 3 mo between robot-assisted laparoscopic and open retropubic radical prostatectomy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A prospective, controlled trial was performed of all men who underwent radical prostatectomy at 14 participating centres. Validated patient questionnaires were collected at baseline and after 3 mo by independent health-care researchers. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The difference in outcome between the two treatment groups were analysed using logistic regression analysis, with adjustment for identified confounders. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Questionnaires were received from 2506 (95%) patients. The robot-assisted surgery group had less perioperative bleeding (185 vs 683 ml, p<0.001) and shorter hospital stay (3.3 vs 4.1 d, p<0.001) than the open surgery group. Operating time was shorter with the open technique (103 vs 175 min, p<0.001) compared with the robot-assisted technique. Reoperation during initial hospital stay was more frequent after open surgery after adjusting for tumour characteristics and lymph node dissection (1.6% vs 0.7%, odds ratio [OR] 0.31, 95% confidence interval [CI 95%] 0.11-0.90). Men who underwent open surgery were more likely to seek healthcare (for one or more of 22 specified disorders identified prestudy) compared to men in the robot-assisted surgery group (p=0.03). It was more common to seek healthcare for cardiovascular reasons in the open surgery group than in the robot-assisted surgery group, after adjusting for nontumour and tumour-specific confounders, (7.9% vs 5.8%, OR 0.63, CI 95% 0.42-0.94). The readmittance rate was not statistically different between the groups. A limitation of the study is the lack of a standardised tool for the assessment of the adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: This large prospective study confirms previous findings that robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is a safe procedure with some short-term advantages compared to open surgery. Whether these advantages also include long-term morbidity and are related to acceptable costs remain to be studied. PATIENT SUMMARY: We compare patient-reported outcomes between two commonly used surgical techniques. Our results show that the choice of surgical technique may influence short-term outcomes.
Authors: Martin Nyberg; Jonas Hugosson; Peter Wiklund; Daniel Sjoberg; Ulrica Wilderäng; Sigrid V Carlsson; Stefan Carlsson; Johan Stranne; Gunnar Steineck; Eva Haglind; Anders Bjartell Journal: Eur Urol Oncol Date: 2018-06-11
Authors: Stefan Carlsson; Fredrik Jäderling; Anna Wallerstedt; Tommy Nyberg; Johan Stranne; Thordis Thorsteinsdottir; Sigrid V Carlsson; Anders Bjartell; Jonas Hugosson; Eva Haglind; Gunnar Steineck Journal: BJU Int Date: 2016-03-18 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Alexander Kretschmer; Philipp Mandel; Alexander Buchner; Christian G Stief; Derya Tilki Journal: World J Urol Date: 2015-03-21 Impact factor: 4.226
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
Authors: Brock O'Neil; Tatsuki Koyama; JoAnn Alvarez; Ralph M Conwill; Peter C Albertsen; Matthew R Cooperberg; Michael Goodman; Sheldon Greenfield; Ann S Hamilton; Karen E Hoffman; Richard M Hoffman; Sherrie H Kaplan; Janet L Stanford; Antoinette M Stroup; Lisa E Paddock; Xiao-Cheng Wu; Robert A Stephenson; Matthew J Resnick; Daniel A Barocas; David F Penson Journal: J Urol Date: 2015-09-03 Impact factor: 7.450