The Comparative Harms of Open and Robotic Prostatectomy in Population Based Samples
Abstract
Purpose:
Robotic assisted radical prostatectomy has largely replaced open radical prostatectomy for the surgical management of prostate cancer despite conflicting evidence of superiority with respect to disease control or functional sequelae. Using population cohort data, in this study we examined sexual and urinary function in men undergoing open radical prostatectomy vs those undergoing robotic assisted radical prostatectomy.
Materials and Methods:
Subjects surgically treated for prostate cancer were selected from 2 large population based prospective cohort studies, the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study (enrolled 1994 to 1995) and the Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation (enrolled 2011 to 2012). Subjects completed baseline, 6-month and 12-month standardized patient reported outcome measures. Main outcomes were between-group differences in functional outcome scores at 6 and 12 months using linear regression, and adjusting for baseline function, sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. Sensitivity analyses were used to evaluate outcomes between patients undergoing open radical prostatectomy and robotic assisted radical prostatectomy within and across CEASAR and PCOS.
Results:
The combined cohort consisted of 2,438 men, 1,505 of whom underwent open radical prostatectomy and 933 of whom underwent robotic assisted radical prostatectomy. Men treated with robotic assisted radical prostatectomy reported better urinary function at 6 months (mean difference 3.77 points, 95% CI 1.09–6.44) but not at 12 months (1.19, −1.32–3.71). Subjects treated with robotic assisted radical prostatectomy also reported superior sexual function at 6 months (8.31, 6.02–10.56) and at 12 months (7.64, 5.25–10.03). Sensitivity analyses largely supported the sexual function findings with inconsistent support for urinary function results.
Conclusions:
This population based study reveals that men undergoing robotic assisted radical prostatectomy likely experience less decline in early urinary continence and sexual function than those undergoing open radical prostatectomy. The clinical meaning of these differences is uncertain and longer followup will be required to establish whether these benefits are durable.
References
- 1 : Centralization of radical prostatectomy in the United States. J Urol2013; 189: 500. Link, Google Scholar
- 2 : Intraoperative blood loss and transfusion requirements for robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy versus radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology2006; 67: 360. Google Scholar
- 3 : Comparison of length of hospital stay between radical retropubic prostatectomy and robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. J Urol2007; 177: 929. Link, Google Scholar
- 4 : A comparison of the incidence and location of positive surgical margins in robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and open retropubic radical prostatectomy. J Urol2007; 178: 2385. Link, Google Scholar
- 5 : Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy: contemporary technique and analysis of results. Eur Urol2007; 51: 648. Google Scholar
- 6 : Robotic vs open prostatectomy in a laparoscopically naive centre: a matched-pair analysis. BJU Int2009; 104: 991. Google Scholar
- 7 : Radical prostatectomy for prostatic adenocarcinoma: a matched comparison of open retropubic and robot-assisted techniques. BJU Int2009; 103: 448. Google Scholar
- 8 : Superior quality of life and improved surgical margins are achievable with robotic radical prostatectomy after a long learning curve: a prospective single-surgeon study of 1552 consecutive cases. Eur Urol2014; 65: 521. Google Scholar
- 9 : Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy. JAMA2009; 302: 1557. Google Scholar
- 10 : Perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared with open radical prostatectomy: results from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample. Eur Urol2012; 61: 679. Google Scholar
- 11 : Temporal national trends of minimally invasive and retropubic radical prostatectomy outcomes from 2003 to 2007: results from the 100% Medicare sample. Eur Urol2012; 61: 803. Google Scholar
- 12 : Benchmarks for operative outcomes of robotic and open radical prostatectomy: results from the Health Professionals Follow-up Study. Eur Urol2014; 67: 432. Google Scholar
- 13 : Comparative effectiveness of robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy cancer control. Eur Urol2014; 66: 666. Google Scholar
- 14 : Short-term results after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy compared to open radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol2014; 67: 660. Google Scholar
- 15 : Comparative effectiveness of robot-assisted and open radical prostatectomy in the postdissemination era. J Clin Oncol2014; 32: 1419. Google Scholar
- 16 : A short-term cost-effectiveness study comparing robot-assisted laparoscopic and open retropubic radical prostatectomy. J Med Econ2011; 14: 403. Google Scholar
- 17 Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing Robotic Versus Open Radical Prostatectomy, ClinicalTrials.gov 2015 (NCT01365143). Google Scholar
- 18 : A randomised trial of robotic and open prostatectomy in men with localised prostate cancer. BMC Cancer2012; 12: 189. Google Scholar
- 19 : Health outcomes after prostatectomy or radiotherapy for prostate cancer: results from the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study. J Natl Cancer Inst2000; 92: 1582. Google Scholar
- 20 : The CaPSURE database: a methodology for clinical practice and research in prostate cancer. CaPSURE Research Panel. Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor. Urology1996; 48: 773. Google Scholar
- 21 : Using a population-based observational cohort study to address difficult comparative effectiveness research questions: the CEASAR study. J Comp Eff Res2013; 2: 445. Google Scholar
- 22 : The UCLA Prostate Cancer Index: development, reliability, and validity of a health-related quality of life measure. Med Care1998; 36: 1002. Google Scholar
- 23 : Analysis linking UCLA PCI with Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite: an evaluation of health related quality of life in Japanese men with localized prostate cancer. J Urol2007; 178: 473. Link, Google Scholar
- 24 : The evolution of self-reported urinary and sexual dysfunction over the last two decades: implications for comparative effectiveness research. Eur Urol2014; 67: 1019. Google Scholar
- 25 : Laparoscopic and robot assisted radical prostatectomy: establishment of a structured program and preliminary analysis of outcomes. J Urol2002; 168: 945. Link, Google Scholar
- 26 : A systematic review of the volume-outcome relationship for radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol2013; 64: 786. Google Scholar
- 27 : Effect of surgical approach on erectile function recovery following bilateral nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy: an evaluation utilizing data from a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy multicenter trial of tadalafil versus placebo. BJU Int2015; 116: 241. Google Scholar
- 28 : Minimally important difference for the expanded prostate cancer index composite short form. Urology2015; 85: 101. Google Scholar
- 29 : Individualizing quality-of-life outcomes reporting: how localized prostate cancer treatments affect patients with different levels of baseline urinary, bowel, and sexual function. J Clin Oncol2009; 27: 3916. Google Scholar
- 30 : Factors associated with adoption of robotic surgical technology in US hospitals and relationship to radical prostatectomy procedure volume. Ann Surg2014; 259: 1. Google Scholar
