Comparison of open and robotic-assisted prostatectomy: The University of British Columbia experience

被引:22
作者
Gagnon, Louis-Olivier
Goldenberg, S. Larry
Lynch, Kenny
Hurtado, Antonio
Gleave, Martin E. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ British Columbia, Vancouver Prostate Ctr, Vancouver, BC V6H 3Z6, Canada
来源
CUAJ-CANADIAN UROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION JOURNAL | 2014年 / 8卷 / 3-4期
关键词
OPEN RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY; CANCER; OUTCOMES; SURGERY; VOLUME;
D O I
10.5489/cuaj.1707
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Introduction: We assessed outcomes and costs of open prostatectomy (OP) versus robotic-assisted prostatectomy (RAP) at a single tertiary care university hospital. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 200 consecutive OP by 1 experienced open surgeon (MG) and 200 consecutive RAP by an experienced open surgeon (SLG), after allowing for a short learning curve of 70 cases. Results: The 2 groups had similar demographics, including mean age (64.7 vs. 64.2) and mean body mass index (27.2 vs. 27.2). The OP group had a higher proportion of higher risk cancers compared to the RAP group (32.5% vs. 8.5%). Mean skin-to-skin operative room time was less for the OP (114.2 vs. 234.1 minutes). Transfusion rates were similar at 1.5% with OP compared to 3.5% with RAP. The mean length of stay was 1.78 days for OP compared to 1.76 days for RAP, for the last 100 patients in each group. The OP group had more high-grade disease in the prostatectomy specimen, with Gleason >= 8 in 23.5% compared to 3.5% in the RAP group. Positive surgical margin rates were comparable at 31% for OP and 24.6% for RAP, and remained similar after stratification for pT2 and pT3 disease. The grade I and II perioperative complication rate (Clavien-Dindo classification) was lower in the OP group (8.5% vs. 20%). Postoperative stress urinary incontinence rates (4.8% for OP and 4.6% for RAP) and biochemical-free status (91.8% for OP and 96% for RAP) did not differ at 12 months post-surgery. The additional cost of RAP was calculated as $5629 per case. The main limitations of this study are its retrospective nature and lack of validated questionnaires for evaluation of postoperative functional outcomes. Conclusion: While hospital length of stay, transfusion rates, positive surgical margin rates and postoperative urinary incontinence were similar, OP had a shorter operative time and a lower cost compared to the very early experience of RAP. Future parallel prospective analysis will address the impact of the learning curve on these outcomes.
引用
收藏
页码:92 / 97
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Transperitoneal Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy After Prosthetic Mesh Herniorrhaphy
    Lallas, Costas D.
    Pe, Mark L.
    Patel, Jitesh V.
    Sharma, Pranav
    Gomella, Leonard G.
    Trabulsi, Edouard J.
    JSLS-JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF LAPAROENDOSCOPIC SURGEONS, 2009, 13 (02) : 142 - 147
  • [42] Consumerism and its impact on robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy
    Alkhateeb, Sultan
    Lawrentschuk, Nathan
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2011, 108 (11) : 1874 - 1878
  • [43] Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: a review of current outcomes
    Coelho, Rafael F.
    Chauhan, Sanket
    Palmer, Kenneth J.
    Rocco, Bernardo
    Patel, Manoj B.
    Patel, Vipul R.
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2009, 104 (10) : 1428 - 1435
  • [44] Anesthetic concerns for robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy
    Gainsburg, D. M.
    MINERVA ANESTESIOLOGICA, 2012, 78 (05) : 596 - 604
  • [45] Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy in men with metabolic syndrome
    Kwon, Young Suk
    Leapman, Michael
    McBride, Russell B.
    Hobbs, Adele R.
    Collingwood, Shemille A.
    Stensland, Kristian D.
    Samadi, David B.
    UROLOGIC ONCOLOGY-SEMINARS AND ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2014, 32 (01) : 40.e9 - 40.e16
  • [46] Oncological and functional outcomes of a large Canadian robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy database with 10 years of surgical experience
    Tholomier, Come
    Couture, Felix
    Ajib, Khaled
    Preisser, Felix
    Bondarenko, Helen Davis
    Negrean, Cristina
    Karakiewicz, Pierre
    El-Hakim, Assaad
    Zorn, Kevin C.
    CANADIAN JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2019, 26 (04) : 9843 - 9851
  • [47] Current role of salvage robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy
    Wetherell, D.
    Bolton, D.
    Kavanagh, L.
    Perera, M.
    WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2013, 31 (03) : 463 - 469
  • [48] Cost-effectiveness analysis of robotic-assisted versus retropubic radical prostatectomy: a single cancer center experience
    de Oliveira, Renato Almeida Rosa
    Guimaraes, Gustavo Cardoso
    Mourao, Thiago Camelo
    de Lima Favaretto, Ricardo
    Santana, Thiago Borges Marques
    Lopes, Ademar
    de Cassio Zequi, Stenio
    JOURNAL OF ROBOTIC SURGERY, 2021, 15 (06) : 859 - 868
  • [49] Comparison of robotic and open radical prostatectomy: Initial experience of a single surgeon
    Simsir, Adnan
    Kizilay, Fuat
    Aliyev, Bayram
    Kalemci, Serdar
    PAKISTAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, 2021, 37 (01) : 167 - 174
  • [50] Robotic-assisted vs. open radical prostatectomy: When can we stop the debate?
    Lavery, Hugh J.
    Levinson, Adam W.
    Samadi, David B.
    UROLOGIC ONCOLOGY-SEMINARS AND ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2012, 30 (05) : 549 - 552