Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Observational Study
. 2015 Mar;67(3):432-8.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.01.039. Epub 2014 Feb 11.

Benchmarks for operative outcomes of robotic and open radical prostatectomy: results from the Health Professionals Follow-up Study

Affiliations
Observational Study

Benchmarks for operative outcomes of robotic and open radical prostatectomy: results from the Health Professionals Follow-up Study

Mehrdad Alemozaffar et al. Eur Urol. 2015 Mar.

Abstract

Background: Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) has become increasingly common; however, there have been no nationwide, population-based, non-claims-based studies to evaluate differences in outcomes between RALP and open radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP).

Objective: To determine surgical, oncologic, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes following RALP and RRP in a nationwide cohort.

Design, setting, and participants: We identified 903 men in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2000 and 2010 who underwent radical prostatectomy using RALP (n=282) or RRP (n=621) as primary treatment.

Intervention: Radical prostatectomy.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: We compared patients undergoing RALP or RRP across a range of perioperative, oncologic, and HRQOL outcomes.

Results and limitations: Use of RALP increased during the study period, constituting 85.2% of study subjects in 2009, up from 4.5% in 2003. Patients undergoing RALP compared to RRP were less likely to have a lymph node dissection (51.5% vs 85.4%; p<0.0001), had less blood loss (207.4 ml vs 852.3 ml; p<0.0001), were less likely to receive blood transfusions (4.3% vs 30.3%; p<0.0001), and had shorter hospital stays (1.8 d vs 2.9 d; p<0.0001). Surgical, oncologic, and HRQOL outcomes did not differ significantly among the groups. In multivariate logistic regression models, there were no significant differences in 3- or 5-yr recurrence-free survival comparing RALP versus RRP (hazard ratios: 0.98 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.46-2.08] and 0.75 [95% CI, 0.18-3.11], respectively).

Conclusions: In a nationwide cohort of patients undergoing surgical treatment for prostate cancer, RALP was associated with shorter hospital stay, and lower blood loss and transfusion rates than RRP. Surgical oncologic and HRQOL outcomes were similar between groups.

Patient summary: We studied men throughout the United States with prostate cancer who underwent surgical removal of the prostate. We found that robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy resulted in shorter hospital stay, less blood loss, and fewer blood transfusions than radical retropubic prostatectomy. There were no differences in cancer control or health-related quality of life.

Keywords: Health-related quality of life; Open; Outcomes; Prostatectomy; Robotic.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Proportion of prostatectomies performed by robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy from 2000 to 2010 in a nationwide cohort of prostate cancer patients. RALP = robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy; RRP = radical retropubic prostatectomy.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Kaplan Meier analysis of biochemical recurrence-free survival. The analysis includes patients who are actively followed in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study for all recurrence outcomes, including biochemical recurrence, metastasis, and prostate cancer death. RALP = robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy; RRP = radical retropubic prostatectomy.

Comment in

  • The controversy that will not go away.
    Schmid M, Gandaglia G, Trinh QD. Schmid M, et al. Eur Urol. 2015 Mar;67(3):439-40. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.02.052. Epub 2014 Mar 4. Eur Urol. 2015. PMID: 24631405 No abstract available.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Stitzenberg KB, Wong YN, Nielsen ME, Egleston BL, Uzzo RG. Trends in radical prostatectomy: centralization, robotics, and access to urologic cancer care. Cancer. 2012;118:54–62. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Duffey B, Varda B, Konety B. Quality of evidence to compare outcomes of open and robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Curr Urol Rep. 2011;12:229–36. - PubMed
    1. Kang DC, Hardee MJ, Fesperman SF, Stoffs TL, Dahm P. Low quality of evidence for robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: results of a systematic review of the published literature. Eur Urol. 2010;57:930–7. - PubMed
    1. Lowrance WT, Tarin TV, Shariat SF. Evidence-based comparison of robotic and open radical prostatectomy. ScientificWorldJournal. 2010;10:2228–37. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ficarra V, Novara G, Artibani W, et al. Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol. 2009;55:1037–63. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms