Literature DB >> 26881411

Initiation of robot-assisted radical prostatectomies in Finland: Impact on centralization and quality of care.

Jarno Riikonen1, Antti Kaipia2, Anssi Petas3, Antero Horte4, Juha Koskimäki1, Esa Kähkönen4, Peter J Boström4, Ilkka Paananen5, Jani Kuisma5, Henrikki Santti3, Mika Matikainen3, Antti Rannikko3.   

Abstract

Objective The aim of this study was to analyze the impact of introduction of robot-assisted prostate surgery and its quality measures in Finland from 2008 to 2012. Materials and methods Registry data were collected for time trends and national distribution of prostate cancer surgery in Finland, while preoperative, operative and follow-up data were collected for quality measures. Results The number and proportion of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomies (RALPs) increased rapidly and they accounted for 68% of all radical prostatectomies in 2012. The number of centers performing prostatectomies diminished from 25 to 20 at the expense of low-volume centers. In total, 1996 patients were operated on in the four RALP centers in 2008-2012. As anticipated, the learning curve was uniform between the centers, as were mean blood loss (212 ml), hospitalization (1.8 days) and catheterization times (10.6 days). At 3 and 12 months, 49.4% and 71.2% of patients, respectively, were totally continent (no pads). After unilateral nerve-sparing surgery, 9.9% and 5.1% had partial or normal erection at 3 months postoperatively and 14.8% and 20.4% at 12 months, respectively. If bilateral nerve sparing was done, the figures were 13.0% and 13.5% at 3 months and 14.6% and 34.9% at 12 months. Clavien-Dindo grade 3, 4 or 5 complications were seen in 0.3%, 0.3% and 0.1% of patients, respectively. Limitations of the study include non-standardized collection of outcome parameters. Conclusions This report shows that the main impact of adoption of RALP on a national level was rapid spontaneous centralization of prostate cancer surgery. The main advantages of minimally invasive prostatectomy, i.e. low blood loss and short hospitalization, are easily achieved, while continuous effort is necessary for improvements in surgical outcomes.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Prostate cancer; prostatectomy; robotics

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26881411     DOI: 10.3109/21681805.2016.1142471

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Scand J Urol        ISSN: 2168-1805            Impact factor:   1.612


  5 in total

1.  A Retrospective Study of Erectile Function and Use of Erectile Aids in Prostate Cancer Patients After Radical Prostatectomy in Denmark.

Authors:  Martha Kirstine Haahr; Nessn H Azawi; Line Grønbaek Andersen; Steen Carlson; Lars Lund
Journal:  Sex Med       Date:  2017-08-01       Impact factor: 2.491

2.  Simulating the impact of centralization of prostate cancer surgery services on travel burden and equity in the English National Health Service: A national population based model for health service re-design.

Authors:  Ajay Aggarwal; Stéphanie A van der Geest; Daniel Lewis; Jan van der Meulen; Marco Varkevisser
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2020-04-23       Impact factor: 4.452

3.  Safe surgery in the elderly: A review of outcomes following robotic proctectomy from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample in a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Carly R Richards; Scott R Steele; Michael B Lustik; Suzanne M Gillern; Robert B Lim; Justin T Brady; Ali R Althans; Andrew T Schlussel
Journal:  Ann Med Surg (Lond)       Date:  2019-06-20

Review 4.  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

5.  Assessment of Out-of-Pocket Costs for Robotic Cancer Surgery in US Adults.

Authors:  Junaid Nabi; David F Friedlander; Xi Chen; Alexander P Cole; Jim C Hu; Adam S Kibel; Prokar Dasgupta; Quoc-Dien Trinh
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2020-01-03
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.