Joshua Montroy1, Ehab Elzayat2, Chris Morash2, Brian Blew2, Luke T Lavallée1,2, Ilias Cagiannos2, James Watterson2, Jeffrey S Oake2, Michael Fungkeefung3, Calvin Thompson4, Robert Weber5, Rodney H Breau1,2. 1. The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa; Ottawa, ON, Canada. 2. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, The Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa; Ottawa, ON, Canada. 3. Department of Gynecology, The Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa; Ottawa, ON, Canada. 4. Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, The Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa; Ottawa, ON, Canada. 5. Department of Nursing, The Ottawa Hospital; Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There is concern that surgical quality initially declines during the learning phase of robotic surgery. At our institution, we used a multi-surgeon programmatic approach to the introduction of robotic surgery. The purpose of this study was to evaluate outcomes of patients treated during the first year of our program. METHODS: This is a historical cohort of all radical prostatectomy patients during a one-year period. Baseline, perioperative, and long-term followup data were prospectively and retrospectively collected. Treatment failure was a composite of any postoperative radiation, androgen-deprivation, or prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≥0.2. RESULTS: During the study period, 225 radical prostatectomy procedures were performed (104 robotic and 121 open). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups (p>0.05). All patients were continent and 74% were potent prior to surgery. Mean estimated blood loss (280 cc vs. 760 cc; p<0.001) and blood transfusion (0% vs. 8.3%; p=0.002) was lower in the robotic cohort. Non-transfusion complications were similar between groups (13% vs. 12%; p=0.7). Mean hospital stay was shorter in the robotic cohort (1.4 vs. 2.5 days). There was no difference in overall positive margin rate (38% vs. 43%; p=0.4) or treatment failure at a median followup of 3.5 years (p=0.4). Robotically treated patients were more often continent (89% vs. 77%; p=0.02) and potent (48% vs. 32%; p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Using an inclusive multi-surgeon approach, robotic pros-tatectomy was introduced safely at a Canadian academic institution.
INTRODUCTION: There is concern that surgical quality initially declines during the learning phase of robotic surgery. At our institution, we used a multi-surgeon programmatic approach to the introduction of robotic surgery. The purpose of this study was to evaluate outcomes of patients treated during the first year of our program. METHODS: This is a historical cohort of all radical prostatectomy patients during a one-year period. Baseline, perioperative, and long-term followup data were prospectively and retrospectively collected. Treatment failure was a composite of any postoperative radiation, androgen-deprivation, or prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≥0.2. RESULTS: During the study period, 225 radical prostatectomy procedures were performed (104 robotic and 121 open). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups (p>0.05). All patients were continent and 74% were potent prior to surgery. Mean estimated blood loss (280 cc vs. 760 cc; p<0.001) and blood transfusion (0% vs. 8.3%; p=0.002) was lower in the robotic cohort. Non-transfusion complications were similar between groups (13% vs. 12%; p=0.7). Mean hospital stay was shorter in the robotic cohort (1.4 vs. 2.5 days). There was no difference in overall positive margin rate (38% vs. 43%; p=0.4) or treatment failure at a median followup of 3.5 years (p=0.4). Robotically treated patients were more often continent (89% vs. 77%; p=0.02) and potent (48% vs. 32%; p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Using an inclusive multi-surgeon approach, robotic pros-tatectomy was introduced safely at a Canadian academic institution.
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
Authors: Stefan Carlsson; Andreas E Nilsson; Martin C Schumacher; Martin N Jonsson; Daniela S Volz; Gunnar Steineck; Peter N Wiklund Journal: Urology Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 2.649
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
Authors: Quoc-Dien Trinh; Jesse Sammon; Maxine Sun; Praful Ravi; Khurshid R Ghani; Marco Bianchi; Wooju Jeong; Shahrokh F Shariat; Jens Hansen; Jan Schmitges; Claudio Jeldres; Craig G Rogers; James O Peabody; Francesco Montorsi; Mani Menon; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2011-12-22 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Jim C Hu; Xiangmei Gu; Stuart R Lipsitz; Michael J Barry; Anthony V D'Amico; Aaron C Weinberg; Nancy L Keating Journal: JAMA Date: 2009-10-14 Impact factor: 56.272