Outcomes Assessment in Men Undergoing Open Retropubic Radical Prostatectomy, Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy, and Robotic-assisted Radical Prostatectomy

Overview

Journal World J Urol

Specialty Urology

Date 2011 Mar 3

PMID 21365238

Citations 5

Authors

Keith J Kowalczyk

Hua-Yin Yu

William Ulmer

Stephen B Williams

Jim C Hu

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: To review the various methods of outcomes assessment used for effectiveness studies comparing retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP), laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP), and robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP).

Methods: A review of the peer reviewed literature was performed for reported series of RRP, LRP, and RALP using Pubmed and MEDLINE with emphasis on comparing perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes. Common methods used for outcomes assessment were categorized and compared, highlighting the pros and cons of each approach.

Results: The majority of the literature comparing RRP, LRP, and RALP comes in the form of observational data or administrative data from secondary datasets. While randomized controlled trials are ideal for outcomes assessment, only one such study was identified and was limited. Non-randomized observational studies contribute to the majority of data, however are limited due to retrospective study design, lack of consistent endpoints, and limited application to the general community. Administrative data provide accurate assessment of operative outcomes in both academic and community settings, however has limited ability to convey accurate functional outcomes.

Conclusions: Non-randomized observational studies and secondary data are useful resources for assessment of outcomes; however, limitations exist for both. Neither is without flaws, and conclusions drawn from either should be viewed with caution. Until standardized prospective comparative analyses of RRP, LRP, and RALP are established, comparative outcomes data will remain imperfect. Urologic researchers must strive to provide the best available outcomes data through accurate prospective data collection and consistent outcomes reporting.

Citing Articles

Extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: A prospective 2-year single-surgeon experience with 171 cases.

Leitao T, Papatsoris A, Mandron E Arab J Urol. 2015; 10(4):347-52.

PMID: 26558048 PMC: 4442966. DOI: 10.1016/j.aju.2012.09.001.

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

Alemozaffar M, Sanda M, Yecies D, Mucci L, Stampfer M, Kenfield S Eur Urol. 2014; 67(3):432-8.

PMID: 24582327 PMC: 4128909. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.01.039.

Development of urologic laparoscopy in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland: a survey among urologists.

Imkamp F, Herrmann T, Stolzenburg J, Rassweiler J, Sulser T, Zimmermann U World J Urol. 2014; 32(6):1363-74.

PMID: 24493294 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-014-1250-4.

Long-term oncological and functional results of extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: one surgical team's experience on 1,600 consecutive cases.

Verze P, Scuzzarella S, Martina G, Giummelli P, Cantoni F, Mirone V World J Urol. 2013; 31(3):529-34.

PMID: 23504073 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-013-1052-0.

Natural orifice (NOTES) transurethral sutureless radical prostatectomy with thulium laser support: first patient report.

Nagele U, Anastasiadis A, Walcher U, Nicklas A, Merseburger A, Herrmann T World J Urol. 2011; 30(5):625-31.

PMID: 21739124 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-011-0714-z.

References

Menon M, Bhandari M, Gupta N, Lane Z, Peabody J, Rogers C . Biochemical recurrence following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: analysis of 1384 patients with a median 5-year follow-up. Eur Urol. 2010; 58(6):838-46. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2010.09.010. View

Cooperberg M, Lubeck D, Meng M, Mehta S, Carroll P . The changing face of low-risk prostate cancer: trends in clinical presentation and primary management. J Clin Oncol. 2004; 22(11):2141-9. PMC: 2997214. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2004.10.062. View

Potosky A, Riley G, Lubitz J, Mentnech R, Kessler L . Potential for cancer related health services research using a linked Medicare-tumor registry database. Med Care. 1993; 31(8):732-48. View

Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Hao Y, Xu J, Thun M . Cancer statistics, 2009. CA Cancer J Clin. 2009; 59(4):225-49. DOI: 10.3322/caac.20006. View

Krupski T . Standardization of reporting surgical complications--are we ready?. J Urol. 2010; 183(5):1671-2. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2010.02.2374. View

Kordan Y, Barocas D, Altamar H, Clark P, Chang S, Davis R . Comparison of transfusion requirements between open and robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2010; 106(7):1036-40. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09233.x. View

Raldow A, Hamstra D, Kim S, Yu J . Salvage external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy: current status and controversy. Oncology (Williston Park). 2010; 24(8):692-700, 702. View

Borawski K, Norris R, Fesperman S, Vieweg J, Preminger G, Dahm P . Levels of evidence in the urological literature. J Urol. 2007; 178(4 Pt 1):1429-33. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2007.05.150. View

Guazzoni G, Cestari A, Naspro R, Riva M, Centemero A, Zanoni M . Intra- and peri-operative outcomes comparing radical retropubic and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: results from a prospective, randomised, single-surgeon study. Eur Urol. 2006; 50(1):98-104. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2006.02.051. View

10.

Parker W, Wang R, He C, Wood Jr D . Five year expanded prostate cancer index composite-based quality of life outcomes after prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2010; 107(4):585-90. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09579.x. View

11.

Coelho R, Rocco B, Patel M, Orvieto M, Chauhan S, Ficarra V . Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a critical review of outcomes reported by high-volume centers. J Endourol. 2010; 24(12):2003-15. PMC: 3122926. DOI: 10.1089/end.2010.0295. View

12.

Welk B, Afshar K, MacNeily A . Randomized controlled trials in pediatric urology: room for improvement. J Urol. 2006; 176(1):306-9. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5347(06)00560-X. View

13.

Devereaux P, Bhandari M, Clarke M, Montori V, Cook D, Yusuf S . Need for expertise based randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2005; 330(7482):88. PMC: 543877. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.330.7482.88. View

14.

Horng S, Miller F . Is placebo surgery unethical?. N Engl J Med. 2002; 347(2):137-9. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsb021025. View

15.

Smith Jr J, Chan R, Chang S, Herrell S, Clark P, Baumgartner R . A comparison of the incidence and location of positive surgical margins in robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and open retropubic radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2007; 178(6):2385-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2007.08.008. View

16.

Begg C, Riedel E, Bach P, Kattan M, Schrag D, Warren J . Variations in morbidity after radical prostatectomy. N Engl J Med. 2002; 346(15):1138-44. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsa011788. View

17.

Scales Jr C, Voils C, Fesperman S, Sur R, Kubler H, Preminger G . Barriers to the practice of evidence-based urology. J Urol. 2008; 179(6):2345-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2008.01.109. View

18.

Kang D, Hardee M, Fesperman S, Stoffs T, Dahm P . Low quality of evidence for robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: results of a systematic review of the published literature. Eur Urol. 2010; 57(6):930-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2010.01.034. View

19.

Ficarra V, Novara G, Artibani W, Cestari A, Galfano A, Graefen M . Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol. 2009; 55(5):1037-63. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2009.01.036. View

20.

Bajammal S, Dahm P, Scarpero H, Orovan W, Bhandari M . How to use an article about therapy. J Urol. 2008; 180(5):1904-11. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2008.07.026. View