Literature DB >> 27628630

Is the transition from open to robotic prostatectomy fair to your patients? A single-surgeon comparison with 2-year follow-up.

Robert B Nadler1, Jessica T Casey2, Lee C Zhao2, Neema Navai2, Zachary L Smith3, Ali Zhumkhawala4, Amanda M Macejko5.   

Abstract

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is a procedure thought to require experience with a significant number of cases before mastering. Most RARP series examine outcomes after the learning curve or by combining results from multiple surgeons. We review a single surgeon's experience during the transition from open radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) to RARP using a matched case-control model. We prospectively analyzed 50 RARP cases and made comparison with the last 50 consecutive RRP cases. Operative time was longer for RARP than RRP (341 versus 235 min, p < 0.01), and mean estimated blood loss was less for RARP than RRP (533 versus 1,540 ml, p < 0.01). There was a trend towards fewer positive surgical margins (PSM) for RARP (10%) than RRP (24%; p = 0.06). High-risk patients were found to have a greater percentage of PSM following RRP (70%) in comparison with RARP (17%; p = 0.04). The number of patients who experienced complications was no different between groups (16 versus 12, p = 0.37). Erectile function at 12, 18, and 24 months showed no difference between groups (p = 0.15, 0.92, and 0.23, respectively). There was no difference in continence at 1 year (88.6% versus 89.1%; p = 0.94). During 27.1 months of follow-up for the RARP group and 30.4 months for the RRP group, 92% and 94% of patients had an undetectable prostate-specific antigen (PSA) (defined as ≤0.1), respectively (p = 0.38). We report similar outcomes in patients undergoing RARP by a surgeon transitioning from RRP to RARP, confirming that the learning curve does not affect patient outcomes over a 2-year follow-up.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Learning curve; Open; Prostate cancer; Prostatectomy; Robotic

Year:  2009        PMID: 27628630     DOI: 10.1007/s11701-009-0162-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Robot Surg        ISSN: 1863-2483


  26 in total

1.  Robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparison of one surgeon's outcomes.

Authors:  Thomas E Ahlering; David Woo; Louis Eichel; David I Lee; Robert Edwards; Douglas W Skarecky
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 2.649

2.  Robotic radical prostatectomy: a technique to reduce pT2 positive margins.

Authors:  Thomas E Ahlering; Louis Eichel; Robert A Edwards; David I Lee; Douglas W Skarecky
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 2.649

Review 3.  Evidence from robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a systematic review.

Authors:  Vincenzo Ficarra; Stefano Cavalleri; Giacomo Novara; Maurizio Aragona; Walter Artibani
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2006-06-30       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 4.  Oncological and functional results of open, robot-assisted and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: does surgical approach and surgical experience matter?

Authors:  T R Herrmann; R Rabenalt; J U Stolzenburg; E N Liatsikos; F Imkamp; H Tezval; A J Gross; U Jonas; M Burchardt
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2007-03-13       Impact factor: 4.226

5.  Learning curve and preliminary experience with da Vinci-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Walter Artibani; Simonetta Fracalanza; Stefano Cavalleri; Massimo Iafrate; Maurizio Aragona; Giacomo Novara; Marina Gardiman; Vincenzo Ficarra
Journal:  Urol Int       Date:  2008-05-14       Impact factor: 2.089

6.  Modified clipless antegrade nerve preservation in robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with validated sexual function evaluation.

Authors:  Gary W Chien; Albert A Mikhail; Marcelo A Orvieto; Gregory P Zagaja; Mitchell H Sokoloff; Charles B Brendler; Arieh L Shalhav
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 2.649

7.  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

8.  Early experience with robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Hong Gee Sim; Sidney K H Yip; Weber K O Lau; James K Tan; Christopher W S Cheng
Journal:  Asian J Surg       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 2.767

9.  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

10.  Robotic radical prostatectomy and the Vattikuti Urology Institute technique: an interim analysis of results and technical points.

Authors:  Mani Menon; Ashutosh Tewari
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 2.649

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  Comparison of retropubic, laparoscopic and robotic radical prostatectomy: who is the winner?

Authors:  Abbas Basiri; Jean Jmch de la Rosette; Shahin Tabatabaei; Henry H Woo; M Pilar Laguna; Hamidreza Shemshaki
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2018-01-23       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 2.  Comparison Between Robotic and Laparoscopic or Open Anastomoses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Ioannis D Kostakis; Harkiran Sran; Raphael Uwechue; Pankaj Chandak; Jonathon Olsburgh; Nizam Mamode; Ioannis Loukopoulos; Nicos Kessaris
Journal:  Robot Surg       Date:  2019-12-23
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.