Functional and Oncologic Outcomes Between Open and Robotic Radical Prostatectomy at 24-month Follow-up in the Swedish LAPPRO Trial
- PMID: 31158073
- PMCID: PMC7061692
- DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2018.04.012
Functional and Oncologic Outcomes Between Open and Robotic Radical Prostatectomy at 24-month Follow-up in the Swedish LAPPRO Trial
Abstract
Background: The adoption of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) has increased rapidly, despite lack of conclusive evidence of its superiority regarding long-term outcomes over open retropubic RP (RRP). In 2015, we reported on 12-mo follow-up from the LAPPRO trial showing a moderate advantage of RALP regarding erectile dysfunction. No significant differences were seen for urinary incontinence or surgical margin status.
Objective: To present patient-reported functional outcomes and recurrent and residual disease at 24-mo follow-up from the prospective multicenter LAPPRO trial.
Design, setting, and participants: A total of 4003 patients with clinically localized prostate cancer were recruited from 14 Swedish centers, seven performing RALP and seven RRP.
Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Data were only analyzed for patients operated on by surgeons with >100 prior RPs. Adjusted odds ratios (AORs) were calculated using logistic regression, with adjustment for differences in patient mix.
Results and limitations: At 24 mo, there was a significant difference in erectile dysfunction in favor of RALP (68% vs 74%; AOR 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57-0.91; p=0.006). No significant difference was observed for incontinence (19% vs 16%; AOR 1.29, 95% CI 1.00-1.67; p=0.053) or recurrent or residual disease (13% vs 13%; AOR 0.79, 95% CI 0.59-1.07; p=0.13). We did not adjust for individual surgeon volume and experience, which is a potential limitation.
Conclusions: Extended follow-up corroborated our previous report at 12 mo of a persistent RALP benefit regarding potency.
Patient summary: LAPPRO is a Swedish trial comparing two different prostate cancer surgical techniques (robotic compared to open). At 24-mo follow-up after surgery there was a moderate advantage for the robotic technique regarding erectile dysfunction (potency), while there was a small but not significant difference in urinary leakage in favor of open surgery. We did not find any difference regarding cancer relapse.
Keywords: Biochemical recurrence; Erectile dysfunction; Open radical prostatectomy; Prostate cancer; Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy; Urinary incontinence.
Copyright © 2018 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Figures


Comment in
-
Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy-So Successful Because It Is Better or Better Because It Is So Successful?Eur Urol Oncol. 2018 Oct;1(5):361-363. doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2018.08.021. Epub 2018 Sep 15. Eur Urol Oncol. 2018. PMID: 31158074 No abstract available.
-
Re: Functional and Oncologic Outcomes between Open and Robotic Radical Prostatectomy at 24-Month Follow-up in the Swedish LAPPRO Trial.J Urol. 2019 Dec;202(6):1080. doi: 10.1097/01.JU.0000585184.60442.db. Epub 2019 Sep 12. J Urol. 2019. PMID: 31512968 No abstract available.
References
-
- Wallerstedt A, Tyritzis SI, Thorsteinsdottir T, et al. Short-term results after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy compared to open radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2015;67:660–70. - PubMed
-
- Yaxley JW, Coughlin GD, Chambers SK, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: early outcomes from a randomised controlled phase 3 study. Lancet 2016;388:1057–66. - PubMed
-
- Hu JC, Gu X, Lipsitz SR, et al. Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy. JAMA 2009;302:1557–64. - PubMed
-
- Haglind E, Carlsson S, Stranne J, et al. Urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction after robotic versus open radical prostatectomy: a prospective, controlled, nonrandomised trial. Eur Urol 2015;68:216–25. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources