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
Comparative Study
. 2022 Feb 7;22(1):18.
doi: 10.1186/s12894-022-00966-0.

Comparison of urinary and sexual patient-reported outcomes between open radical prostatectomy and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a propensity score matched, population-based study in Victoria

Michael Rechtman  1 , Andrew Forbes  1 , Jeremy L Millar  1   2 , Melanie Evans  1 , Lachlan Dodds  3   4 , Declan G Murphy  5   6 , Sue M Evans  7   8
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Comparison of urinary and sexual patient-reported outcomes between open radical prostatectomy and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a propensity score matched, population-based study in Victoria

Michael Rechtman et al. BMC Urol. .

Abstract

Background: Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) rates have been increasing worldwide despite a lack of evidence of superior patient-reported outcomes (PROs) compared to open radical prostatectomy (ORP).

Methods: This retrospective study included men who contributed data to the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry-Victoria (PCOR-Vic), underwent ORP or RARP between January 2014 and May 2018, and completed the EPIC-26 questionnaire 12 months post-surgery. Urinary and sexual bother items, the urinary incontinence domain score, the urinary irritative/obstructive domain score, the sexual domain score and the pad usage item from the EPIC-26 questionnaire were compared between the two cohorts. Unmatched and propensity score matched cohorts were used to determine if there were differences in urinary and sexual PROs between ORP and RARP after accounting for the patient case-mix and surgeon characteristics.

Results: Of 3826 patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP), 1047 received ORP and 2779 received RARP. Propensity score matching reduced the magnitude of the observed differences in four out of six outcomes (urinary bother, urinary incontinence domain, pad usage and sexual domain). Using a propensity score matched cohort, there were no statistically significant differences for RARP patients, compared to ORP patients, in terms of urinary bother (Rd = 0.47%, P = 0.707), urinary incontinence domain scores (Coeff = - 0.84, P = 0.506), urinary irritative/obstructive domain scores (Coeff = 1.03, P = 0.105), pad usage (Rd = - 0.75%, P = 0.771) and sexual bother (Rd = - 0.89%, P = 0.731). RARP patients had slightly higher sexual domain scores (Coeff = 3.65, P = 0.005).

Conclusion: There were no differences in urinary PROs between ORP and RARP when assessed 12 months post-surgery. The sexual domain slightly favoured RARP, however this was not deemed clinically significant.

Keywords: Expanded prostate cancer index composite (EPIC) questionnaire; Open radical prostatectomy (ORP); Patient-reported outcomes (PRO); Radical prostatectomy (RP); Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP).

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

DGM reports personal fees from Janssen Pharma, personal fees from Astellas Pharma, personal fees from Bayer Pharma, personal fees from Ferring, personal fees from Astra Zeneca, personal fees from Ipsen, outside the submitted work. No other authors report any conflicts of interest.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Evans MA, Millar JL, Earnest A, Frydenberg M, Davis ID, Murphy DG, et al. Active surveillance of men with low risk prostate cancer: evidence from the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry-Victoria. Med J Aust. 2018;208(10):443. doi: 10.5694/mja17.00559. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Basto M, Sathianathen N, Marvelde L, Ryan S, Goad J, Lawrentschuk N, et al. Patterns-of-care and health economic analysis of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in the Australian public health system. BJU Int. 2016;117(6):930–939. doi: 10.1111/bju.13317. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wang LL, Begashaw K, Evans M, Earnest A, Evans SM, Millar JL, et al. Patterns of care and outcomes for men diagnosed with prostate cancer in Victoria: an update. ANZ J Surg. 2018;88(10):1042. doi: 10.1111/ans.14722. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, Van den Broeck T, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer-2020 update. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol. 2021;79(2):243–262. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.042. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sanda MG, Cadeddu JA, Kirkby E, Chen RC, Crispino T, Fontanarosa J, et al. Clinically localized prostate cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO guideline. Part I: risk stratification, shared decision making, and care options. J Urol. 2018;199(3):683–690. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.11.095. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types