C B Anderson1, E B Elkin2, C L Atoria2, J A Eastham1, P T Scardino1, K Touijer1. 1. The Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Sidney Kimmel Center for Prostate and Urological Malignancies and Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 2. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The diffusion of minimally invasive radical prostatectomy (MIRP) in the United States may have led to adverse patient outcomes due to rapid surgeon adoption and collective inexperience. We hypothesized that throughout the early period of minimally invasive surgery, MIRP patients had inferior outcomes as compared with those who had open radical prostatectomy (ORP). METHODS: We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End RESULTS-Medicare dataset and identified men who had ORP and MIRP for prostate cancer from 2003-2009. Study endpoints were receipt of subsequent cancer treatment, and evidence of postoperative voiding dysfunction, erectile dysfunction (ED) and bladder outlet obstruction. We used proportional hazards regression to estimate the impact of surgical approach on each endpoint, and included an interaction term to test for modification of the effect of surgical approach by year of surgery. RESULTS: ORP (n=5362) and MIRP (n=1852) patients differed in their clinical and demographic characteristics. Controlling for patient characteristics and surgeon volume, there was no difference in subsequent cancer treatments (hazard ratio (HR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76-1.05), although MIRP was associated with a higher risk of voiding dysfunction (HR 1.31, 95% CI 1.20-1.43) and ED (HR 1.43, 95% CI 1.31-1.56), but a lower risk of bladder outlet obstruction (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75-0.97). There was no interaction between approach and year for any outcome. When stratifying the analysis by year, MIRP consistently had higher rates of ED and voiding dysfunction with no substantial improvement over time. CONCLUSIONS: MIRP patients had adverse urinary and sexual outcomes throughout the diffusion of minimally invasive surgery. This may have been a result of the rapid adoption of robotic surgery with inadequate surgeon preparedness.
BACKGROUND: The diffusion of minimally invasive radical prostatectomy (MIRP) in the United States may have led to adverse patient outcomes due to rapid surgeon adoption and collective inexperience. We hypothesized that throughout the early period of minimally invasive surgery, MIRP patients had inferior outcomes as compared with those who had open radical prostatectomy (ORP). METHODS: We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End RESULTS-Medicare dataset and identified men who had ORP and MIRP for prostate cancer from 2003-2009. Study endpoints were receipt of subsequent cancer treatment, and evidence of postoperative voiding dysfunction, erectile dysfunction (ED) and bladder outlet obstruction. We used proportional hazards regression to estimate the impact of surgical approach on each endpoint, and included an interaction term to test for modification of the effect of surgical approach by year of surgery. RESULTS: ORP (n=5362) and MIRP (n=1852) patients differed in their clinical and demographic characteristics. Controlling for patient characteristics and surgeon volume, there was no difference in subsequent cancer treatments (hazard ratio (HR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76-1.05), although MIRP was associated with a higher risk of voiding dysfunction (HR 1.31, 95% CI 1.20-1.43) and ED (HR 1.43, 95% CI 1.31-1.56), but a lower risk of bladder outlet obstruction (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75-0.97). There was no interaction between approach and year for any outcome. When stratifying the analysis by year, MIRP consistently had higher rates of ED and voiding dysfunction with no substantial improvement over time. CONCLUSIONS: MIRP patients had adverse urinary and sexual outcomes throughout the diffusion of minimally invasive surgery. This may have been a result of the rapid adoption of robotic surgery with inadequate surgeon preparedness.
Authors: Jeffery W Saranchuk; Michael W Kattan; Elena Elkin; A Karim Touijer; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-06-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Peter McCulloch; Douglas G Altman; W Bruce Campbell; David R Flum; Paul Glasziou; John C Marshall; Jon Nicholl; Jeffrey K Aronson; Jeffrey S Barkun; Jane M Blazeby; Isabell C Boutron; W Bruce Campbell; Pierre-Alain Clavien; Jonathan A Cook; Patrick L Ergina; Liane S Feldman; David R Flum; Guy J Maddern; Jon Nicholl; Bournaby C Reeves; Christoph M Seiler; Steven M Strasberg; Jonathan L Meakins; Deborah Ashby; Nick Black; John Bunker; Martin Burton; Marion Campbell; Kalipso Chalkidou; Iain Chalmers; Marc de Leval; Jon Deeks; Patrick L Ergina; Adrian Grant; Muir Gray; Roger Greenhalgh; Milos Jenicek; Sean Kehoe; Richard Lilford; Peter Littlejohns; Yoon Loke; Rajan Madhock; Kim McPherson; Jonathan Meakins; Peter Rothwell; Bill Summerskill; David Taggart; Parris Tekkis; Matthew Thompson; Tom Treasure; Ulrich Trohler; Jan Vandenbroucke Journal: Lancet Date: 2009-09-26 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Jim C Hu; Giorgio Gandaglia; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Paul L Nguyen; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Ya-Chen Tina Shih; Firas Abdollah; Karim Chamie; Jonathan L Wright; Patricia A Ganz; Maxine Sun Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-02-19 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: James E Thompson; Sam Egger; Maret Böhm; Anne-Maree Haynes; Jayne Matthews; Krishan Rasiah; Phillip D Stricker Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-10-31 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Brian Shuch; Janet Hanley; Julie Lai; Srinivas Vourganti; Simon P Kim; Claude M Setodji; Andrew W Dick; Wong-Ho Chow; Chris Saigal Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-05-14 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Sergey Shikanov; Jason Woo; Hikmat Al-Ahmadie; Mark H Katz; Gregory P Zagaja; Arieh L Shalhav; Kevin C Zorn Journal: Urology Date: 2009-07-18 Impact factor: 2.649