A case-mix-adjusted comparison of early oncological outcomes of open and robotic prostatectomy performed by experienced high volume surgeons
- PMID: 23356747
- PMCID: PMC3759974
- DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11638.x
A case-mix-adjusted comparison of early oncological outcomes of open and robotic prostatectomy performed by experienced high volume surgeons
Abstract
Objective: To compare early oncological outcomes of robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) and open radical prostatectomy (ORP) performed by high volume surgeons in a contemporary cohort.
Methods: We reviewed patients who underwent radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer by high volume surgeons performing RALP or ORP. Biochemical recurrence (BCR) was defined as PSA ≥ 0.1 ng/mL or PSA ≥ 0.05 ng/mL with receipt of additional therapy. A Cox regression model was used to evaluate the association between surgical approach and BCR using a predictive model (nomogram) based on preoperative stage, grade, volume of disease and PSA. To explore the impact of differences between surgeons, multivariable analyses were repeated using surgeon in place of approach.
Results: Of 1454 patients included, 961 (66%) underwent ORP and 493 (34%) RALP and there were no important differences in cancer characteristics by group. Overall, 68% of patients met National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria for intermediate or high risk disease and 9% had lymph node involvement. Positive margin rates were 15% for both open and robotic groups. In a multivariate model adjusting for preoperative risk there was no significant difference in BCR rates for RALP compared with ORP (hazard ratio 0.88; 95% CI 0.56-1.39; P = 0.6). The interaction term between nomogram risk and procedure type was not statistically significant. Using NCCN risk group as the covariate in a Cox model gave similar results (hazard ratio 0.74; 95% CI 0.47-1.17; P = 0.2). The interaction term between NCCN risk and procedure type was also non-significant. Differences in BCR rates between techniques (4.1% vs 3.3% adjusted risk at 2 years) were smaller than those between surgeons (2.5% to 4.8% adjusted risk at 2 years).
Conclusions: In this relatively high risk cohort of patients undergoing radical prostatectomy we found no evidence to suggest that ORP resulted in better early oncological outcomes then RALP. Oncological outcome after radical prostatectomy may be driven more by surgeon factors than surgical approach.
© 2013 The Authors BJU International © 2013 BJU International.
Conflict of interest statement
None declared.
Figures


Comment in
-
A case-mix-adjusted comparison of early oncological outcomes of open and robotic prostatectomy performed by experienced high volume surgeons.BJU Int. 2013 Feb;111(2):184-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11643.x. BJU Int. 2013. PMID: 23356744 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
South African single surgeon experience: Comparison of oncological outcomes, robot-assisted radical prostatectomy versus open perineal radical prostatectomy.Int J Urol. 2025 Apr;32(4):423-426. doi: 10.1111/iju.15672. Epub 2025 Jan 12. Int J Urol. 2025. PMID: 39800908 Free PMC article.
-
Biochemical recurrence-free survival after robotic-assisted laparoscopic vs open radical prostatectomy for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer.Urology. 2014 Jun;83(6):1309-15. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2014.02.023. Epub 2014 Apr 18. Urology. 2014. PMID: 24746665
-
Comparison of oncological and health-related quality of life outcomes between open and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for localised prostate cancer - findings from the population-based Victorian Prostate Cancer Registry.BJU Int. 2016 Oct;118(4):563-9. doi: 10.1111/bju.13380. Epub 2015 Dec 19. BJU Int. 2016. PMID: 26573954
-
Long-term oncological outcomes after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.BJU Int. 2013 Feb;111(2):271-80. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11317.x. Epub 2012 Jul 3. BJU Int. 2013. PMID: 22757970 Review.
-
Perioperative, functional and oncological outcomes after open and minimally invasive prostate cancer surgery: experience from Australasia.BJU Int. 2011 Apr;107 Suppl 3:11-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10053.x. BJU Int. 2011. PMID: 21492370 Review.
Cited by
-
Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy vs. Open Retropubic Radical Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Indian J Surg. 2015 Dec;77(Suppl 3):1326-33. doi: 10.1007/s12262-014-1170-y. Epub 2014 Sep 24. Indian J Surg. 2015. PMID: 27011560 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Robotic radical prostatectomy in high-risk prostate cancer: current perspectives.Asian J Androl. 2015 Nov-Dec;17(6):908-15; discussion 913. doi: 10.4103/1008-682X.153541. Asian J Androl. 2015. PMID: 25994643 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy Is More Beneficial for Prostate Cancer Patients: A System Review and Meta-Analysis.Med Sci Monit. 2018 Jan 14;24:272-287. doi: 10.12659/msm.907092. Med Sci Monit. 2018. PMID: 29332100 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Comparison of Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy and Open Radical Prostatectomy Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Yonsei Med J. 2016 Sep;57(5):1165-77. doi: 10.3349/ymj.2016.57.5.1165. Yonsei Med J. 2016. PMID: 27401648 Free PMC article.
-
South African single surgeon experience: Comparison of oncological outcomes, robot-assisted radical prostatectomy versus open perineal radical prostatectomy.Int J Urol. 2025 Apr;32(4):423-426. doi: 10.1111/iju.15672. Epub 2025 Jan 12. Int J Urol. 2025. PMID: 39800908 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Walsh PC. Anatomic radical prostatectomy: evolution of the surgical technique. J Urol. 1998;160:2418–2424. - PubMed
-
- Menon M, Tewari A, Peabody J. Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy: technique. J Urol. 2003;169:2289–2292. - PubMed
-
- Cagiannos I, Karakiewicz P, Eastham JA, et al. A preoperative nomogram identifying decreased risk of positive pelvic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer. J Urol. 2003;170:1798–1803. - PubMed
-
- Touijer K, Rabbani F, Otero JR, et al. Standard versus limited pelvic lymph node dissection for prostate cancer in patients with a predicted probability of nodal metastasis greater than 1% J Urol. 2007;178:120–124. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
Research Materials
Miscellaneous