Literature DB >> 26935867

The effect of minimally invasive prostatectomy on practice patterns of American urologists.

Daniel T Oberlin1, Andrew S Flum2, Jeremy D Lai2, Joshua J Meeks2.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION AND
OBJECTIVES: To determine how robotic prostatectomy affects practice patterns of urologists, we examined the case volume characteristics among certifying urologists for the surgical treatment of prostate cancer. We hypothesized that the utilization of open and robotic prostatectomy as well as lymph node dissection changed dynamically over the last 10 years.
METHODS: A total of 6-month case log data of certifying urologists from 2003 to 2013 were obtained for the American Board of Urology. Cases were identified using Current Procedural Terminology codes for open radical prostatectomy (ORP) and laparoscopic or robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) with a corresponding diagnosis of prostate cancer as defined by ICD-9 code 185.0. RESULTS OBTAINED: A total of 6,563 urologists submitted case logs, of which 68% (4,470/6,563) reported performing at least one radical prostatectomy (RP), totaling 46,030 RPs logged. There was a 376% increase in the performance of RALP over the study period with robotic volume increasing from 22% of all RP in 2003 to 85% in 2013. Among surgeons performing ORP, the median number performed was 2; of surgeons who performed RALP, the median number performed was 8 (P<0.001). Overall, 39% of surgeons logging ORP performed 2 or fewer RP, whereas 19% of surgeons who performed RALP performed 2 or less RP (P<0.001). The highest volume robotic surgeons (top 10% surgical volume) performed 41% of all RALP with the highest performing robotic surgeon recording 658 prostatectomies over 6 months. Oncologists represented 4.1% of all surgeons performing RP and performed 15.1% of all RP (P<0.001); general urologists performed the majority of RP (57.8%). When performed open, there was no influence of surgeon specialty on the performance of lymph node dissection (LND); if performed robotically, oncologists were significantly more likely to perform LND compared with general surgeons (47% vs. 25.9%, respectively, P<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Robotic prostatectomies are performed 5 times more commonly than open prostatectomy and represent 85% of all RP performed by board-certified urologists in 2013. Compared to RALP, ORP are significantly more likely to be performed by lower volume surgeons. Oncologists perform a higher relative percentage of RPs and are significantly more likely to perform LND if performed robotically when compared with general urologists.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  American board of urology; Practice patterns; Prostate cancer; Robotic prostatectomy

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26935867      PMCID: PMC4883062          DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2016.01.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urol Oncol        ISSN: 1078-1439            Impact factor:   3.498


  18 in total

Review 1.  Is volume related to outcome in health care? A systematic review and methodologic critique of the literature.

Authors:  Ethan A Halm; Clara Lee; Mark R Chassin
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2002-09-17       Impact factor: 25.391

2.  Variations among high volume surgeons in the rate of complications after radical prostatectomy: further evidence that technique matters.

Authors:  Fernando J Bianco; Elyn R Riedel; Colin B Begg; Michael W Kattan; Peter T Scardino
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 7.450

3.  Racial treatment trends in localized/regional prostate carcinoma: 1992-1999.

Authors:  Willie Underwood; James Jackson; John T Wei; Rodney Dunn; Edmond Baker; Sonya Demonner; David P Wood
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2005-02-01       Impact factor: 6.860

4.  Surgery: centers of excellence for penile prosthesis: yes or no?

Authors:  Tariq F Al-Shaiji; Gerald B Brock
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 14.432

5.  The association between diffusion of the surgical robot and radical prostatectomy rates.

Authors:  Danil V Makarov; James B Yu; Rani A Desai; David F Penson; Cary P Gross
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 2.983

6.  Contemporary open and robotic radical prostatectomy practice patterns among urologists in the United States.

Authors:  William T Lowrance; James A Eastham; Caroline Savage; A C Maschino; Vincent P Laudone; Christopher B Dechet; Robert A Stephenson; Peter T Scardino; Jaspreet S Sandhu
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2012-04-11       Impact factor: 7.450

7.  Relationship between the volume of total hip replacements performed by providers and the rates of postoperative complications in the state of Washington.

Authors:  H J Kreder; R A Deyo; T Koepsell; M F Swiontkowski; W Kreuter
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1997-04       Impact factor: 5.284

8.  Association of procedure volume with radical cystectomy outcomes in a nationwide database.

Authors:  Christopher E Barbieri; Byron Lee; Michael S Cookson; John Bingham; Peter E Clark; Joseph A Smith; Sam S Chang
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2007-08-16       Impact factor: 7.450

9.  Centers of excellence concept and penile prostheses: an outcome analysis.

Authors:  Gerard D Henry; Neil S Kansal; Mark Callaway; Tobin Grigsby; Jonathon Henderson; James Noble; Thomas Palmer; Mario A Cleves; John K Ludlow; Caroline J Simmons; Thomas M Mook
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2009-01-18       Impact factor: 7.450

10.  Surgeon volume and operative mortality in the United States.

Authors:  John D Birkmeyer; Therese A Stukel; Andrea E Siewers; Philip P Goodney; David E Wennberg; F Lee Lucas
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2003-11-27       Impact factor: 91.245

View more
  18 in total

Review 1.  Management of Urethral Stricture and Bladder Neck Contracture Following Primary and Salvage Treatment of Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Brendan Michael Browne; Alex J Vanni
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 3.092

2.  Trend of Surgical Treatment of Localized Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Authors:  Ramzi B Jabaji; Heidi Fischer; Tyler Kern; Gary W Chien
Journal:  Perm J       Date:  2019

Review 3.  Surgical method influences specimen margins and biochemical recurrence during radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Victor Srougi; Jose Bessa; Mohammed Baghdadi; Igor Nunes-Silva; Jose Batista da Costa; Silvia Garcia-Barreras; Eric Barret; Francois Rozet; Marc Galiano; Rafael Sanchez-Salas; Xavier Cathelineau
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2017-02-27       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  Association Between Radiation Therapy, Surgery, or Observation for Localized Prostate Cancer and Patient-Reported Outcomes After 3 Years.

Authors:  Daniel A Barocas; JoAnn Alvarez; Matthew J Resnick; Tatsuki Koyama; Karen E Hoffman; Mark D Tyson; Ralph Conwill; Dan McCollum; Matthew R Cooperberg; Michael Goodman; Sheldon Greenfield; Ann S Hamilton; Mia Hashibe; Sherrie H Kaplan; Lisa E Paddock; Antoinette M Stroup; Xiao-Cheng Wu; David F Penson
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2017-03-21       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Are you seeing this: the impact of steep Trendelenburg position during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy on intraocular pressure: a brief review of the literature.

Authors:  Robert S Ackerman; Jonathan B Cohen; Rosemarie E Garcia Getting; Sephalie Y Patel
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2018-07-25

6.  Association Between Choice of Radical Prostatectomy, External Beam Radiotherapy, Brachytherapy, or Active Surveillance and Patient-Reported Quality of Life Among Men With Localized Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Ronald C Chen; Ramsankar Basak; Anne-Marie Meyer; Tzy-Mey Kuo; William R Carpenter; Robert P Agans; James R Broughman; Bryce B Reeve; Matthew E Nielsen; Deborah S Usinger; Kiayni C Spearman; Sarah Walden; Dianne Kaleel; Mary Anderson; Til Stürmer; Paul A Godley
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2017-03-21       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  Routine Postoperative Hemoglobin Assessment Poorly PredictsTransfusion Requirement among Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Radical Prostatectomy.

Authors:  Gregory T Chesnut; Nicole Benfante; David Barham; Lucas W Dean; Amy Tin; Daniel D Sjoberg; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham; Behfar Ehdaie; Jonathan A Coleman; Timothy F Donahue; Karim A Touijer; Vincent P Laudone
Journal:  Urol Pract       Date:  2020-07

Review 8.  Diffusion and adoption of the surgical robot in urology.

Authors:  Anup A Shah; Jathin Bandari; Daniel Pelzman; Benjamin J Davies; Bruce L Jacobs
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2021-05

9.  Can anastomotic urinary leakage in robotic prostatectomy be considered as a marker of surgical skill?

Authors:  Fabrizio Dal Moro; Paolo Beltrami; Filiberto Zattoni
Journal:  Cent European J Urol       Date:  2017-02-12

Review 10.  Measuring Quality of Life Following Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy.

Authors:  Graham R Hale; Mohammed Shahait; David I Lee; Daniel J Lee; Ryan W Dobbs
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2021-06-23       Impact factor: 2.711

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.