Top

Published in:

01-08-2021 | Benign Prostatic Hypertrophy | Original Article

Robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy versus open simple prostatectomy: a New York statewide analysis of early adoption and outcomes between 2009 and 2017

Authors: Krishna T. Ravivarapu, Olamide Omidele, John Pfail, Nir Tomer, Alexander C. Small, Michael A. Palese

Published in: Journal of Robotic Surgery | Issue 4/2021

Abstract

The factors driving early adoption of robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) for large gland BPH have not yet been identified. This study aims to determine the patient, provider, and facility level differences and predictors in undergoing RASP versus OSP. This population-based cohort study used data from the all-payer New York State Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS) database. Patient, provider, and facility characteristics for each cohort were analyzed, and a multivariate analysis was conducted to identify predictive factors associated with undergoing RASP versus OSP. From 2009 to 2017, 1881 OSP and 216 RASP cases were identified. RASP utilization increased from 2.6% of all cases in 2009 to 16.8% in 2017. Patient demographics were similar between both cohorts. Median length of stay was shorter for RASP patients (3 vs. 4 days, p < 0.001), and OSP was associated with a long length of stay (> 7 days) (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in 30- and 90-day readmission rates or 1-year mortality. More OSP patients were discharged to continued care facilities than RASP patients (p = 0.049), and more RASP patients were discharged to home compared to OSP patients (p = 0.035). Positive predictors for undergoing RASP included teaching hospital status, medium and high hospital bed volume, high hospital operative volume, high surgeon volume, and surgeons that graduated within 15 years of surgery. As RASP shows favorable perioperative outcomes, the diffusion of robotic technology and newer graduates entering the workforce may augment the upward trend of RASP utilization.

Welliver C, Sulaver R, Whittington A et al (2015) Analyzing why men seek treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms and factors associated with non improvement. Urology 86(5):862–867. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2015.08.006CrossRefPubMed

Girman CJ, Jacobsen SJ, Tsukamoto T et al (1998) Health-related quality of life associated with lower urinary tract symptoms in four countries. Urology 51(3):428–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0090-4295(97)00717-6CrossRefPubMed

Sotelo R, Clavijo R, Carmona O et al (2008) Robotic simple prostatectomy. J Urol 179(2):513–515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2007.09.065CrossRefPubMed

Dotzauer R, La Torre A, Thomas A et al (2020) Robot-assisted simple prostatectomy versus open simple prostatectomy: a single-center comparison. World J Urol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03168-1CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Sorokin I, Sundaram V, Singla N et al (2017) Robot-Assisted versus open simple prostatectomy for benign prostatic hyperplasia in large glands: a propensity score-matched comparison of perioperative and short-term outcomes. J Endourol 31(11):1164–1169. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2017.0489CrossRefPubMed

Mourmouris P, Keskin SM, Skolarikos A et al (2019) A prospective comparative analysis of robot-assisted vs open simple prostatectomy for benign prostatic hyperplasia. BJU Int 123(2):313–317. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14531CrossRefPubMed

Foster HE, Dahm P, Kohler TS et al (2019) Surgical management of lower urinary tract symptoms attributed to benign prostatic hyperplasia: AUA guideline amendment 2019. J Urol 202(3):592–598. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000319CrossRefPubMed

Pariser JJ, Packiam VT, Adamsky MA, Bales GT (2016) Trends in simple prostatectomy for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Curr Urol Rep 17(8):57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-016-0610-6CrossRefPubMed

Autorino R, Zargar H, Mariano MB et al (2015) Perioperative outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic simple prostatectomy: a european-american multi-institutional analysis. Eur Urol 68(1):86–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.11.044CrossRefPubMed

10.

Banapour P, Patel N, Kane CJ, Cohen SA, Parsons JK (2014) Robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy: a systematic review and report of a single institution case series. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 17(1):1–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2013.52CrossRefPubMed

11.

Shah AA, Gahan JC, Sorokin I (2018) Comparison of robot-assisted versus open simple prostatectomy for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Curr Urol Rep 19(9):71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-018-0820-1CrossRefPubMed

12.

Sheetz KH, Claflin J, Dimick JB (2020) Trends in the adoption of robotic surgery for common surgical procedures. JAMA Netw Open 3(1):e1918911. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.18911CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Chang SL, Kibel AS, Brooks JD, Chung BI (2015) The impact of robotic surgery on the surgical management of prostate cancer in the USA: impact of robotics on prostate cancer surgery. BJU Int 115(6):929–936. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12850CrossRefPubMed

14.

Cheung H, Wang Y, Chang SL, Khandwala Y, Del Giudice F, Chung BI (2017) Adoption of robot-assisted partial nephrectomies: a population-based analysis of U.S. surgeons from 2004 to 2013. J Endourol 31(9):886-892. doi: 10.1089/end.2017.0174

15.

Rogers EM (2010) Diffusion of innovations, 4th edn. Free Press, New York

16.

Leow JJ, Chang SL, Meyer CP et al (2016) Robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: a contemporary analysis of an all-payer discharge database. Eur Urol 70(5):837–845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.01.044CrossRefPubMed

17.

Makarov DV, Yu JB, Desai RA, Penson DF, Gross CP (2011) The association between diffusion of the surgical robot and radical prostatectomy rates. Med Care 49(4):333–339. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e318202adb9CrossRefPubMed

18.

Aquina CT, Probst CP, Becerra AZ et al (2016) High volume improves outcomes: the argument for centralization of rectal cancer surgery. Surgery 159(3):736–748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2015.09.021CrossRefPubMed

19.

Gourin CG, Stewart CM, Frick KD et al (2019) Association of hospital volume with laryngectomy outcomes in patients with larynx cancer. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 145(1):62. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoto.2018.2986CrossRefPubMed

20.

Wilt TJ, Shamliyan TA, Taylor BC, MacDonald R, Kane RL (2020) Association between hospital and surgeon radical prostatectomy volume and patient outcomes: a systematic review. J Urol 180(3):820–829. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.05.010CrossRef

21.

Urbach DR (2015) Pledging to eliminate low-volume surgery. N Engl J Med 373(15):1388–1390. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1508472CrossRefPubMed

22.

Anderson CB, Penson DF, Ni S, Makarov DV, Barocas DA (2013) Centralization of radical prostatectomy in the United States. J Urol 189(2):500–506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.10.012CrossRefPubMed

23.

Stitzenberg KB, Wong Y-N, Nielsen ME, Egleston BL, Uzzo RG (2012) Trends in radical prostatectomy: centralization, robotics, and access to urologic cancer care: patterns of care for prostate cancer. Cancer 118(1):54–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.26274CrossRefPubMed

24.

Hoag NA, Mamut A, Afshar K, Amling C, Mickelson JJ, MacNeily AE (2012) Trends in urology resident exposure to minimally invasive surgery for index procedures: a tale of two countries. J Surg Educ 69(5):670–675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2012.04.007CrossRefPubMed

25.

Christiansen T, Vrangbæk K (2018) Hospital centralization and performance in Denmark—Ten years on. Health Policy 122(4):321–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2017.12.009CrossRefPubMed

26.

Liu JH, Zingmond DS, McGory ML et al (2006) Disparities in the utilization of high-volume hospitals for complex surgery. JAMA 296(16):1973. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.296.16.1973CrossRefPubMed

27.

Trinh QD, Sun M, Sammon J et al (2012) Disparities in access to care at high-volume institutions for uro-oncologic procedures: utilization of High-Volume Institutions. Cancer 118(18):4421–4426. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.27440CrossRefPubMed

28.

Omidele OO, Finkelstein M, Omorogbe A, Palese M (2020) Radical prostatectomy sociodemographic disparities based on hospital and physician volume. Clin Genitourin Cancer 17(5):e1011–e1019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2019.05.027CrossRef

29.

Casey MF, Wisnivesky J, Le VH et al (2016) The relationship between centralization of care and geographic barriers to cystectomy for bladder cancer. Bladder Cancer 2(3):319–327. https://doi.org/10.3233/BLC-160058CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

30.

Matei DV, Brescia A, Mazzoleni F et al (2012) Robot-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP): Does it make sense? BJU Int 110(11c):E972–E979. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11192.xCrossRefPubMed

Title: Robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy versus open simple prostatectomy: a New York statewide analysis of early adoption and outcomes between 2009 and 2017
Authors: Krishna T. Ravivarapu
Olamide Omidele
John Pfail
Nir Tomer
Alexander C. Small
Michael A. Palese
Publication date: 01-08-2021
Publisher: Springer London
Keywords: Benign Prostatic Hypertrophy
Prostatectomy
Benign Prostatic Hypertrophy
Prostatectomy
Published in: Journal of Robotic Surgery / Issue 4/2021
Print ISSN: 1863-2483
Electronic ISSN: 1863-2491
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-020-01152-w

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy versus open simple prostatectomy: a New York statewide analysis of early adoption and outcomes between 2009 and 2017

Abstract

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 4/2021

Hospital robotic use for colorectal cancer care

Patient reported outcome measures concerning urinary incontinence after robot assisted radical prostatectomy: development and validation of an online prediction model using clinical parameters, lower urinary tract symptoms and surgical experience

Multiple perceptions of robotic-assisted surgery among surgeons and patients: a cross-sectional study

Xanthogranulomatous pyelonephritis: a comparison of open and minimally-invasive surgical approaches

A comparison of three approaches for laparoscopic single-site (LESS) myomectomy: conventional, robotic, and hand assisted

Robot-assisted pelvic urologic surgeries: is it feasible to perform under reduced tilt?