Literature DB >> 27796665

Patient reported functional outcomes following robotic-assisted (RARP), laparoscopic (LRP), and open radical prostatectomies (ORP).

G J Nason1, F O'Kelly2, S White2, E Dunne2, G P Smyth2,3, R E Power2,3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer is associated with significant complications, such as urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction. Debate remains regarding the influence of surgical technique on these important functional outcomes. AIM: The aim of this study was to compare the early functional outcomes following robotic-assisted (RARP), laparoscopic (LRP), and open radical prostatectomy (ORP) in a rapid access cohort.
METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database was performed between 2011 and 2014. Functional status was objectively assessed using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5), and a self-reported continence score.
RESULTS: Two hundred and ninety-two patients underwent RP (85 RARP, 100 LRP, 107 ORP). The mean age was 61.3 years with a mean initial PSA was 6.2 ng/ml. There was no difference noted in urinary function between ORP, LRP, and RARP at 3 months (p = 0.894), 6 months (p = 0.244), 9 months (p = 0.068) or 12 months (p = 0.154). All men noted a deterioration in erectile function; however, there was no difference at 3 months (p = 0.922), 6 months (p = 0.723), 9 months (p = 0.101) or 12 months (p = 0.395),
CONCLUSION: Equivalent good early functional outcomes are being achieved in patients undergoing RP irrespective of surgical approach. Longer follow-up in a prospective randomized fashion is required to fully assess the most appropriate surgical technique.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Erectile dysfunction; Functional outcomes; Prostate cancer; Radical prostatectomy; Urinary incontinence

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27796665     DOI: 10.1007/s11845-016-1522-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ir J Med Sci        ISSN: 0021-1265            Impact factor:   1.568


  22 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 assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus radical retropubic prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer: comparison of short-term biochemical recurrence-free survival.

Authors:  Daniel A Barocas; Shady Salem; Yakup Kordan; S Duke Herrell; Sam S Chang; Peter E Clark; Rodney Davis; Roxelyn Baumgartner; Sharon Phillips; Michael S Cookson; Joseph A Smith
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2010-01-18       Impact factor: 7.450

3.  Postprostatectomy erectile dysfunction: the role of penile rehabilitation.

Authors:  Brian P Defade; Culley C Carson; Michael J Kennelly
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2011

4.  Adverse effects of robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus open retropubic radical prostatectomy among a nationwide random sample of medicare-age men.

Authors:  Michael J Barry; Patricia M Gallagher; Jonathan S Skinner; Floyd J Fowler
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-01-03       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  Open, laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: comparative analysis of operative and pathologic outcomes for three techniques with a single surgeon's experience.

Authors:  M Akand; O Celik; E Avci; I Duman; T Erdogru
Journal:  Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 3.507

6.  Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: early outcomes from a randomised controlled phase 3 study.

Authors:  John W Yaxley; Geoffrey D Coughlin; Suzanne K Chambers; Stefano Occhipinti; Hema Samaratunga; Leah Zajdlewicz; Nigel Dunglison; Rob Carter; Scott Williams; Diane J Payton; Joanna Perry-Keene; Martin F Lavin; Robert A Gardiner
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2016-07-26       Impact factor: 79.321

7.  Robotically assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: feasibility study in men.

Authors:  G Pasticier; J B Rietbergen; B Guillonneau; G Fromont; M Menon; G Vallancien
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 8.  Minimally invasive approaches to prostate cancer: a review of the current literature.

Authors:  Ari Abraham Hakimi; Marc Feder; Reza Ghavamian
Journal:  Urol J       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 1.510

9.  A prospective, non-randomized trial comparing robot-assisted laparoscopic and retropubic radical prostatectomy in one European institution.

Authors:  Vincenzo Ficarra; Giacomo Novara; Simonetta Fracalanza; Carolina D'Elia; Silvia Secco; Massimo Iafrate; Stefano Cavalleri; Walter Artibani
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2009-03-05       Impact factor: 5.588

10.  The Comparative Harms of Open and Robotic Prostatectomy in Population Based Samples.

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

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  [Minimally invasive versus open prostatectomy for localised prostate cancer].

Authors:  A Spek
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2018-03       Impact factor: 0.639

2.  Quality of Life Following Prostatectomy as a Function of Surgery Type and Degree of Nerve Sparing.

Authors:  Donald S Strassberg; Suzanne M Zavodni; Paul Gardner; Christopher Dechet; Robert A Stephenson; Kelsey K Sewell
Journal:  Curr Urol       Date:  2017-11-30
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.