M S Lezin1, R Cherrie, E V Cattolica. 1. Department of Urology, Kaiser Permanente Medical Center, Oakland, California 94611-5693, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the cost-effectiveness and morbidity of minilaparotomy (MINILAP) and laparoscopic pelvic lymphadenectomy (LAP) in a community practice setting. METHODS: We reviewed our experience with 44 consecutive patients with prostate cancer who had staging pelvic lymphadenectomy from January 1992 through April 1995 in a general health maintenance organization urology practice. Of this group, 22 men had LAP and 22 men had MINILAP. RESULTS: MINILAP and LAP groups were similar in age (mean 67 years). Gleason score (mean 7.2 and 6.8), prostate-specific antigen level (mean 46 and 49 ng/mL), and clinical stage (T1 to T3). Operative time was statistically significantly shorter for MINILAP (mean 1.2 hours) than for LAP (mean 2.9 hours). Complication rate was 9.1% for MINILAP and 31.8% for LAP. Lymph node metastasis was found in 45% of MINILAP patients and in 27% of LAP patients. Mean initial hospital stay was 1.0 day for MINILAP and 1.6 days for LAP. Total hospital stay including hospital readmission for complications was 1.5 days for MINILAP and 2.6 days for LAP. Cost of MINILAP was at least $1900 less than that of LAP because of shorter total hospital stay, shorter operation time, and lower equipment cost. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with LAP, MINILAP was more cost-effective and produced less morbidity. Patient satisfaction with the procedures was similar. MINILAP is an excellent alternative to LAP for prostate cancer staging in general urology practice.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the cost-effectiveness and morbidity of minilaparotomy (MINILAP) and laparoscopic pelvic lymphadenectomy (LAP) in a community practice setting. METHODS: We reviewed our experience with 44 consecutive patients with prostate cancer who had staging pelvic lymphadenectomy from January 1992 through April 1995 in a general health maintenance organization urology practice. Of this group, 22 men had LAP and 22 men had MINILAP. RESULTS: MINILAP and LAP groups were similar in age (mean 67 years). Gleason score (mean 7.2 and 6.8), prostate-specific antigen level (mean 46 and 49 ng/mL), and clinical stage (T1 to T3). Operative time was statistically significantly shorter for MINILAP (mean 1.2 hours) than for LAP (mean 2.9 hours). Complication rate was 9.1% for MINILAP and 31.8% for LAP. Lymph node metastasis was found in 45% of MINILAP patients and in 27% of LAP patients. Mean initial hospital stay was 1.0 day for MINILAP and 1.6 days for LAP. Total hospital stay including hospital readmission for complications was 1.5 days for MINILAP and 2.6 days for LAP. Cost of MINILAP was at least $1900 less than that of LAP because of shorter total hospital stay, shorter operation time, and lower equipment cost. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with LAP, MINILAP was more cost-effective and produced less morbidity. Patient satisfaction with the procedures was similar. MINILAP is an excellent alternative to LAP for prostate cancer staging in general urology practice.