Top

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research

Prospective longitudinal outcomes of quality of life after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy compared with retropubic radical prostatectomy

Authors: Katsuyoshi Hashine, Toshio Kakuda, Shunsuke Iuchi, Tadanori Hosokawa, Iku Ninomiya

Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes | Issue 1/2018

Abstract

Background

There have been few reports on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) in Japanese patients. The aim of this study is to assess changes in HRQOL during 36 months after LRP compared with retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP).

Methods

The subjects were 105 consecutive patients treated with LRP between 2011 and 2012. HRQOL was evaluated using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), Medical Outcome Study 8-Items Short Form Health Survey (SF-8), and Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) at baseline and 1, 3, 6, 12 and 36 months after surgery. These results were compared with data for 107 consecutive patients treated with RRP between 2005 and 2007. The comparison between LRP and RRP was examined at every time point by Mann-Whitney U-test and chi-square test. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to identify independent factors related to the urinary domain in EPIC.

Results

The IPSS change was similar in both groups. The LRP group had a better SF-8 mental component summary score at baseline and a better SF-8 physical component summary score at 1 month after surgery. In EPIC, urinary function and bother were worse after LRP, but improved at 12 months and did not differ significantly from those after RRP; however, these factors then worsened again at 36 months after LRP. Urinary incontinence was also worse at 36 months after LRP, compared to RRP. In patients treated with nerve-sparing surgery, urinary function and urinary incontinence were similar and good at 12 and 36 months in both groups. Bowel function and bother, and sexual function and bother were similar in both groups and showed no changes from 12 to 36 months. Age and salvage radiotherapy were independent predictors of incontinence (daily use of two or more pads) in multivariate analysis. Surgical procedure was not an independent factor for incontinence, but incontinence defined as use of one pad or more was associated with the surgical procedure.

Conclusions

Urinary function and bother at 36 months were worse after LRP than after RRP. Age, salvage radiotherapy and surgical procedure were associated with urinary incontinence after 36 months.

Guillonneau B, Cathelineau X, Barret E, Rozet F, Vallancien G. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: technical and early oncological assessment of 40 operations. Eur Urol. 1999;36:–14, 20.

Hruza M, Bermejo JL, Flinspach B, Schulze M, Teber D, Rumpelt HJ, et al. Long-term oncological outcomes after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2013;111:271–80.CrossRefPubMed

Soares R, Di Benedetto A, Dovey Z, Bott S, McGregor RG, Eden CG. Minimum 5-year follow-up of 1138 consecutive laparoscopic radical prostatectomies. BJU Int. 2015;115:546–53.CrossRefPubMed

Verze P, Scuzzarella S, Martina GR, Giummelli P, Cantoni F, Mirone V. Long-term oncological and functional results of extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: one surgical team's experience on 1,600 consecutive cases. World J Urol. 2013;31:529–34.CrossRefPubMed

Busch J, Stephan C, Herold A, Erber B, Kempkensteffen C, Hinz S, et al. Long-term oncological and continence outcomes after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a single-centre experience. BJU Int. 2012;110:E985–90.CrossRefPubMed

Jacobsen NE, Moore KN, Estey E, Voaklander D. Open versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a prospective comparison of postoperative urinary incontinence rates. J Urol. 2007;177:615–9.CrossRefPubMed

Namiki S, Egawa S, Terachi T, Matsubara A, Igawa M, Terai A, et al. Changes in quality of life in first year after radical prostatectomy by retropubic, laparoscopic, and perineal approach: multi-institutional longitudinal study in Japan. Urol. 2006;67:321–7.CrossRefPubMed

Ficarra V, Novara G, Rosen RC, Artibani W, Carroll PR, Costello A, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012;62:405–17.CrossRefPubMed

Ball AJ, Gambill B, Fabrizio MD, Davis JW, Given RW, Lynch DF, et al. Prospective longitudinal comparative study of early health-related quality-of-life outcomes in patients undergoing surgical treatment for localized prostate cancer: a short-term evaluation of five approaches from a single institution. J Endourol. 2006;20:723–31.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Hashine K, Nakashima T, Iio H, Ueno Y, Shimizu S, Ninomiya I. Health-related quality of life in the first year after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy compared with open radical prostatectomy. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2014;44:686–91.CrossRefPubMed

11.

VHSchmeller N, Keller H, Janetschek G. Head-to-head comparison of retropubic, perineal and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Int J Urol. 2007;14:402–5.

12.

Touijer K, Eastham JA, Secin FP, Romero Otero J, Serio A, Stasi J, et al. Comprehensive prospective comparative analysis of outcomes between open and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy conducted in 2003 to 2005. J Urol. 2008;179:1811–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Bolla M, van Poppel H, Tombal B, Vekemans K, Da Pozzo L, de Reijke TM, et al. Postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer: long-term results of a randomised controlled trial (EORTC trial 22911). Lancet. 2012;380:2018–27.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Namiki S, Kaiho Y, Mitsuzuka K, Saito H, Yamada S, Nakagawa H, et al. Long-term quality of life after radical prostatectomy: 8-year longitudinal study in Japan. Int J Urol. 2014;21:1220–6.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Prabhu V, Sivarajan G, Taksler GB, Laze J, Lepor H. Long-term continence outcomes in men undergoing radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2014;65:52–7.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Resnick MJ, Koyama T, Fan KH, Albertsen PC, Goodman M, Hamilton AS, et al. Long-term functional outcomes after treatment for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:436–45.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Naselli A, Simone G, Papalia R, Gallucci M, Introini C, Andreatta R, et al. Late-onset incontinence in a cohort of radical prostatectomy patients. Int J Urol. 2011;18:76–9.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Sooriakumaran P, Srivastava A, Shariat SF, Stricker PD, Ahlering T, Eden CG, et al. A multinational, multi-institutional study comparing positive surgical margin rates among 22393 open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy patients. Eur Urol. 2014;66:450–6.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Novara G, Ficarra V, Mocellin S, Ahlering TE, Carroll PR, Graefen M, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting oncologic outcome after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012;62:382–404.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Moran PS, O'Neill M, Teljeur C, Flattery M, Murphy LA, Smyth G, et al. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared with open and laparoscopic approaches: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Urol. 2013;20:312–21.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Haglind E, Carlsson S, Stranne J, Wallerstedt A, Wilderang U, Thorsteinsdottir T, et al. Urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction after robotic versus open radical prostatectomy: a prospective, controlled, nonrandomised trial. Eur Urol. 2015;68:216–25.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Asimakopoulos AD, Pereira Fraga CT, Annino F, Pasqualetti P, Calado AA, Mugnier C. Randomized comparison between laparoscopic and robot-assisted nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. J Sex Med. 2011;8:1503–12.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Porpiglia F, Morra I, Lucci Chiarissi M, Manfredi M, Mele F, Grande S, et al. Randomised controlled trial comparing laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2013;63:606–14.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Prospective longitudinal outcomes of quality of life after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy compared with retropubic radical prostatectomy
Authors: Katsuyoshi Hashine
Toshio Kakuda
Shunsuke Iuchi
Tadanori Hosokawa
Iku Ninomiya
Publication date: 01-12-2018
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1477-7525
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-017-0835-1

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Prospective longitudinal outcomes of quality of life after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy compared with retropubic radical prostatectomy

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Validation of the LITHUANIAN version of the 19-item audit of diabetes dependent quality of life (ADDQOL – LT) questionnaire in patients with diabetes

Systematic review of health state utility values in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer with a focus on previously treated patients

Defining the minimally clinically important difference of the SF-36 physical function subscale for paediatric CFS/ME: triangulation using three different methods

Correction to: Validation of the German version of the late adolescence and young adulthood survivorship-related quality of life measure (LAYA-SRQL)

Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric properties of the Kessler Scale of Psychological Distress to a traumatic brain injury population in Swahili and the Tanzanian Setting

Informal caregiving burden and perceived social support in an acute stroke care facility