Top

Published in:

01-06-2011

Quality of Evidence to Compare Outcomes of Open and Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy

Authors: Branden Duffey, Briony Varda, Badrinath Konety

Published in: Current Urology Reports | Issue 3/2011

Abstract

Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) has gained widespread acceptance in the treatment of prostate cancer. While it increasingly is becoming the surgical approach of choice in many centers, limited data exist directly comparing it to radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP). This review examines the evidence comparing RALP to RRP. The outcomes evaluated are arranged into perioperative, oncologic, and functional outcomes. Of the 21 publications meeting our selection criteria, Level II, III, and IV evidence were found in 9, 1, and 11 articles, respectively. Overall, RALP was associated with lower blood loss, transfusion rates, length of stay, and higher cost when compared to RRP. Definitive conclusions regarding complications and oncologic and functional outcomes are not yet possible, and will require longer-term follow-up and well-designed randomized controlled trials.

Jemal A, Siegel R, Xu J, et al. Cancer statistics, 2010. CA Cancer J Clin. 2010;60:277–300.PubMedCrossRef

Yuh BE, Hussain A, Chandrasekhar R, et al. Comparative analysis of global practice patterns in urologic robot-assisted surgery. J Endourol. 2010;24:1637–44.PubMedCrossRef

Ficarra V, Novara G, Fracalanza S, et al. A prospective, non-randomized trial comparing robot-assisted laparoscopic and retropubic radical prostatectomy in one European institution. BJU Int. 2009;104:534–9.PubMedCrossRef

•• Kang DC, Hardee MJ, Fesperman SF et al. Low quality of evidence for robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: results of a systematic review of the published literature. Eur Urol 2010, 57: 930–937. This comprehensive review of RALP notes that the RALP literature is limited to observational studies of mostly low quality.PubMedCrossRef

Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine—levels of evidence. Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine web site. http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=1025.

Gainsburg DM, Wax D, Reich DL, et al. Intraoperative management of robotic-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy. JSLS. 2010;14:1–5.PubMedCrossRef

Kordan Y, Barocas DA, Altamar HO, et al. Comparison of transfusion requirements between open and robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2010;106:1036–40.PubMedCrossRef

Rocco B, Matei DV, Melegari S, et al. Robotic vs open prostatectomy in a laparoscopically naive centre: a matched-pair analysis. BJU Int. 2009;104:991–5.PubMedCrossRef

Truesdale MD, Lee DJ, Cheetham PJ, et al. Assessment of lymph node yield after pelvic lymph node dissection in men with prostate cancer: a comparison between robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and open radical prostatectomy in the modern era. J Endourol. 2010;24:1055–60.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Bolenz C, Gupta A, Hotze T, et al. Cost comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and open radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2010;57:453–8.PubMedCrossRef

11.

Breyer BN, Davis CB, Cowan JE, et al. Incidence of bladder neck contracture after robot-assisted laparoscopic and open radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2010;106:1734–8.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Carlsson S, Nilsson AE, Schumacher MC, et al. Surgery-related complications in 1253 robot-assisted and 485 open retropubic radical prostatectomies at the Karolinska University Hospital, Sweden. Urology. 2010;75:1092–7.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Di Pierro GB, Baumeister P, Stucki P et al. A prospective trial comparing consecutive series of open retropubic and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in a centre with a limited caseload. Eur Urol 2010, [Epub ahead of print].

14.

•• Hu JC, Gu X, Lipsitz SR et al. Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy. Jama 2009, 302: 1557–1564. This analysis of SEER-Medicare data indicates that MIRP is associated with fewer strictures and miscellaneous complications compared to RRP, but more genitourinary complications, erectile dysfunction, and incontinence. PubMedCrossRef

15.

Krambeck AE, DiMarco DS, Rangel LJ, et al. Radical prostatectomy for prostatic adenocarcinoma: a matched comparison of open retropubic and robot-assisted techniques. BJU Int. 2009;103:448–53.PubMedCrossRef

16.

Lo KL, Ng CF, Lam CN, et al. Short-term outcome of patients with robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: for localised carcinoma of prostate. Hong Kong Med J. 2010;16:31–5.PubMed

17.

Choi WW, Gu X, Lipsitz SR et al. The effect of minimally invasive and open radical prostatectomy surgeon volume. Urol Oncol 2010, [Epub ahead of print].

18.

Bolenz C, Gupta A, Hotze T, et al. The influence of body mass index on the cost of radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2010;106:1188–93.PubMedCrossRef

19.

Lotan Y, Bolenz C, Gupta A, et al. The effect of the approach to radical prostatectomy on the profitability of hospitals and surgeons. BJU Int. 2010;105:1531–5.PubMedCrossRef

20.

Lowrance WT, Elkin EB, Jacks LM, et al. Comparative effectiveness of prostate cancer surgical treatments: a population based analysis of postoperative outcomes. J Urol. 2010;183:1366–72.PubMedCrossRef

21.

Menon M, Tewari A, Baize B, et al. Prospective comparison of radical retropubic prostatectomy and robot-assisted anatomic prostatectomy: the Vattikuti Urology Institute experience. Urology. 2002;60:864–8.PubMedCrossRef

22.

Ahlering TE, Woo D, Eichel L, et al. Robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparison of one surgeon’s outcomes. Urology. 2004;63:819–22.PubMedCrossRef

23.

Pfitzenmaier J, Pahernik S, Tremmel T, et al. Positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: do they have an impact on biochemical or clinical progression? BJU Int. 2008;102:1413–8.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Tewari A, Srivasatava A, Menon M. A prospective comparison of radical retropubic and robot-assisted prostatectomy: experience in one institution. BJU Int. 2003;92:205–10.PubMedCrossRef

25.

Smith Jr JA, Chan RC, Chang SS, et al. A comparison of the incidence and location of positive surgical margins in robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and open retropubic radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2007;178:2385–9. discussion 2389–2390.PubMedCrossRef

26.

Menon M, Shrivastava A, Kaul S, et al. Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy: contemporary technique and analysis of results. Eur Urol. 2007;51:648–57. discussion 657–648.PubMedCrossRef

27.

Parsons JK, Bennett JL. Outcomes of retropubic, laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted prostatectomy. Urology. 2008;72:412–6.PubMedCrossRef

28.

Fracalanza S, Ficarra V, Cavalleri S, et al. Is robotically assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy less invasive than retropubic radical prostatectomy? Results from a prospective, unrandomized, comparative study. BJU Int. 2008;101:1145–9.PubMedCrossRef

29.

Williams SB, Chen MH, D’Amico AV, et al. Radical retropubic prostatectomy and robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: likelihood of positive surgical margin(s). Urology. 2010;76:1097–101.PubMedCrossRef

30.

Loeb S, Epstein JI, Ross AE, et al. Benign prostate glands at the bladder neck margin in robotic vs open radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2010;105:1446–9.PubMedCrossRef

31.

Barocas DA, Salem S, Kordan Y, et al. Robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus radical retropubic prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer: comparison of short-term biochemical recurrence-free survival. J Urol. 2010;183:990–6.PubMedCrossRef

32.

Joslyn SA, Konety BR. Impact of extent of lymphadenectomy on survival after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Urology. 2006;68:121–5.PubMedCrossRef

33.

Allaf ME, Palapattu GS, Trock BJ, et al. Anatomical extent of lymph node dissection: impact on men with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 2004;172:1840–4.PubMedCrossRef

34.

Briganti A, Chun FK, Salonia A, et al. Critical assessment of ideal nodal yield at pelvic lymphadenectomy to accurately diagnose prostate cancer nodal metastasis in patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology. 2007;69:147–51.PubMedCrossRef

35.

Cooperberg MR, Kane CJ, Cowan JE, et al. Adequacy of lymphadenectomy among men undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2010;105:88–92.PubMedCrossRef

36.

Lallas CD, Pe ML, Thumar AB et al. Comparison of lymph node yield in robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy with that in open radical retropubic prostatectomy. BJU Int 2010, [Epub ahead of print].

37.

Coelho RF, Rocco B, Patel MB, et al. Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a critical review of outcomes reported by high-volume centers. J Endourol. 2010;24:2003–15.PubMedCrossRef

38.

Malcolm JB, Fabrizio MD, Barone BB, et al. Quality of life after open or robotic prostatectomy, cryoablation or brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 2010;183:1822–8.PubMedCrossRef

39.

Freedland SJ, Humphreys EB, Mangold LA, et al. Time to prostate specific antigen recurrence after radical prostatectomy and risk of prostate cancer specific mortality. J Urol. 2006;176:1404–8.PubMedCrossRef

40.

Vickers AJ, Bianco FJ, Serio AM, et al. The surgical learning curve for prostate cancer control after radical prostatectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99:1171–7.PubMedCrossRef

41.

Bajammal S, Dahm P, Scarpero HM, et al. How to use an article about therapy. J Urol. 2008;180:1904–11.PubMedCrossRef

42.

Tseng TY, Breau RH, Fesperman SF, et al. Evaluating the evidence: the methodological and reporting quality of comparative observational studies of surgical interventions in urological publications. BJU Int. 2009;103:1026–31.PubMedCrossRef

Title: Quality of Evidence to Compare Outcomes of Open and Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy
Authors: Branden Duffey
Briony Varda
Badrinath Konety
Publication date: 01-06-2011
Publisher: Current Science Inc.
Published in: Current Urology Reports / Issue 3/2011
Print ISSN: 1527-2737
Electronic ISSN: 1534-6285
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-011-0180-6

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Quality of Evidence to Compare Outcomes of Open and Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy

Abstract

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 3/2011

Management of Rising Prostate-specific Antigen After a Negative Biopsy

Current Perspectives on Gleason Grading of Prostate Cancer

Salvage Cryotherapy for Radiation-Recurrent Prostate Cancer: Outcomes and Complications

Androgen Suppression Strategies for Prostate Cancer: Is There an Ideal Approach?

Robotic High-intensity Focused Ultrasound for Prostate Cancer: What Have We Learned in 15 Years of Clinical Use?

Complications of Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection for Prostate Cancer