Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy.

CONTEXT Minimally invasive radical prostatectomy (MIRP) has diffused rapidly despite limited data on outcomes and greater costs compared with open retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP). OBJECTIVE To determine the comparative effectiveness of MIRP vs RRP. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS Population-based observational cohort study using US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Medicare linked data from 2003 through 2007. We identified men with prostate cancer who underwent MIRP (n = 1938) vs RRP (n = 6899). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES We compared postoperative 30-day complications, anastomotic stricture 31 to 365 days postoperatively, long-term incontinence and erectile dysfunction more than 18 months postoperatively, and postoperative use of additional cancer therapies, a surrogate for cancer control. RESULTS Among men undergoing prostatectomy, use of MIRP increased from 9.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.1%-10.5%) in 2003 to 43.2% (95% CI, 39.6%-46.9%) in 2006-2007. Men undergoing MIRP vs RRP were more likely to be recorded as Asian (6.1% vs 3.2%), less likely to be recorded as black (6.2% vs 7.8%) or Hispanic (5.6% vs 7.9%), and more likely to live in areas with at least 90% high school graduation rates (50.2% vs 41.0%) and with median incomes of at least $60,000 (35.8% vs 21.5%) (all P < .001). In propensity score-adjusted analyses, MIRP vs RRP was associated with shorter length of stay (median, 2.0 vs 3.0 days; P<.001) and lower rates of blood transfusions (2.7% vs 20.8%; P < .001), postoperative respiratory complications (4.3% vs 6.6%; P = .004), miscellaneous surgical complications (4.3% vs 5.6%; P = .03), and anastomotic stricture (5.8% vs 14.0%; P < .001). However, MIRP vs RRP was associated with an increased risk of genitourinary complications (4.7% vs 2.1%; P = .001) and diagnoses of incontinence (15.9 vs 12.2 per 100 person-years; P = .02) and erectile dysfunction (26.8 vs 19.2 per 100 person-years; P = .009). Rates of use of additional cancer therapies did not differ by surgical procedure (8.2 vs 6.9 per 100 person-years; P = .35). CONCLUSION Men undergoing MIRP vs RRP experienced shorter length of stay, fewer respiratory and miscellaneous surgical complications and strictures, and similar postoperative use of additional cancer therapies but experienced more genitourinary complications, incontinence, and erectile dysfunction.

[1]  T. Holford The analysis of rates and of survivorship using log-linear models. , 1980, Biometrics.

[2]  Nan M. Laird,et al.  Covariance Analysis of Censored Survival Data Using Log-Linear Analysis Techniques , 1981 .

[3]  P. J. Donker,et al.  Impotence following radical prostatectomy: insight into etiology and prevention. , 1982, The Journal of urology.

[4]  J. Meehan,et al.  Re: Impotence Following Radical Prostatectomy: Insight into Etiology and Prevention, by Patrick C. Walsh and Pieter J. Donker, J. Urol., 128: 492–497, 1982 , 1983 .

[5]  D. Rubin,et al.  Reducing Bias in Observational Studies Using Subclassification on the Propensity Score , 1984 .

[6]  K Y Liang,et al.  Longitudinal data analysis for discrete and continuous outcomes. , 1986, Biometrics.

[7]  K A Arndt,et al.  Cutting edge , 2012, Archives of dermatology.

[8]  Dale McLerran,et al.  An assessment of radical prostatectomy. Time trends, geographic variation, and outcomes. The Prostate Patient Outcomes Research Team. , 1993, JAMA.

[9]  L. Kessler,et al.  Potential for Cancer Related Health Services Research Using a Linked Medicare‐Tumor Registry Database , 1993, Medical care.

[10]  D McLerran,et al.  An assessment of radical prostatectomy. Time trends, geographic variation, and outcomes. The Prostate Patient Outcomes Research Team. , 1993, JAMA.

[11]  J. Robins,et al.  Estimation of Regression Coefficients When Some Regressors are not Always Observed , 1994 .

[12]  M. Barry,et al.  Follow-up prostate cancer treatments after radical prostatectomy: a population-based study. , 1996, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[13]  Donald Rubin,et al.  Estimating Causal Effects from Large Data Sets Using Propensity Scores , 1997, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[14]  P. Walsh Anatomic radical prostatectomy: evolution of the surgical technique. , 1998, The Journal of urology.

[15]  S Bootle,et al.  Practice makes perfect. , 1998, Nursing times.

[16]  J. Robins,et al.  Marginal Structural Models and Causal Inference in Epidemiology , 2000, Epidemiology.

[17]  B. Guillonneau,et al.  Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Montsouris experience. , 2000, The Journal of urology.

[18]  J L Warren,et al.  Development of a comorbidity index using physician claims data. , 2000, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[19]  L I Iezzoni,et al.  Identification of in-hospital complications from claims data. Is it valid? , 2000, Medical care.

[20]  C. Abbou,et al.  Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with a remote controlled robot. , 2001, The Journal of urology.

[21]  B. Guillonneau,et al.  Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: assessment after 240 procedures. , 2001, The Urologic clinics of North America.

[22]  H. Lepor,et al.  Anastomotic strictures following radical prostatectomy: insights into incidence, effectiveness of intervention, effect on continence, and factors predisposing to occurrence. , 2001, Urology.

[23]  M. Litwin,et al.  Life after radical prostatectomy: a longitudinal study. , 2001, The Journal of urology.

[24]  P. Walsh Variations in morbidity after radical prostatectomy. , 2002, The Journal of urology.

[25]  Ashutosh Tewari,et al.  Prospective comparison of radical retropubic prostatectomy and robot-assisted anatomic prostatectomy: the Vattikuti Urology Institute experience. , 2002, Urology.

[26]  Dogu Teber,et al.  Laparoscopic versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparative study at a single institution. , 2003, The Journal of urology.

[27]  S. Bhayani,et al.  Prospective comparison of short-term convalescence: laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy. , 2003, Urology.

[28]  Prospective comparison of short-term convalescence: laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy. , 2003, International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology.

[29]  S. Mehta,et al.  Role of surgeon volume in radical prostatectomy outcomes. , 2003, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[30]  S. Mehta,et al.  Temporal trends in radical prostatectomy complications from 1991 to 1998. , 2003, The Journal of urology.

[31]  S. Bhayani,et al.  Making ends meet: a cost comparison of laparoscopic and open radical retropubic prostatectomy. , 2004, The Journal of urology.

[32]  D. Jacobs,et al.  Laparoscopic resection for colon cancer--the end of the beginning? , 2004, The New England journal of medicine.

[33]  R. Parra,et al.  Contemporary appraisal of radical perineal prostatectomy. , 2005, The Journal of urology.

[34]  S Duke Herrell,et al.  Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: do minimally invasive approaches offer significant advantages? , 2005, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[35]  S Duke Herrell,et al.  Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: what is the learning curve? , 2005, Urology.

[36]  A. D'Amico,et al.  Patient and treatment factors associated with complications after prostate brachytherapy. , 2006, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[37]  Jim C Hu,et al.  Perioperative complications of laparoscopic and robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. , 2006, The Journal of urology.

[38]  B. Guillonneau,et al.  Open to debate. The motion: a robot is needed to perform the best nerve sparing prostatectomy. , 2007, European urology.

[39]  M. Kattan,et al.  The surgical learning curve for prostate cancer control after radical prostatectomy. , 2007, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[40]  J. Moul,et al.  Financial comparative analysis of minimally invasive surgery to open surgery for localized prostate cancer: a single-institution experience. , 2007, Urology.

[41]  S. Herrell,et al.  Comparison of length of hospital stay between radical retropubic prostatectomy and robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. , 2007, The Journal of urology.

[42]  Laurence Klotz,et al.  Robotic radical prostatectomy: Fools rush in, or the early bird gets the worm? , 2012, Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada.

[43]  Mani Menon,et al.  Evolution of robotic radical prostatectomy , 2007, Cancer.

[44]  A. Tewari,et al.  Benefit of robotic assistance in comparing outcomes of minimally invasive versus open radical prostatectomy. , 2008, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[45]  Utilization and outcomes of minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. , 2008, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[46]  S. Lipsitz,et al.  Patterns of care for radical prostatectomy in the United States from 2003 to 2005. , 2008, The Journal of urology.

[47]  R. Nelson,et al.  The impact of prostate gland weight in robot assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. , 2008, The Journal of urology.

[48]  J. Moul,et al.  Satisfaction and regret after open retropubic or robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. , 2008, European urology.

[49]  Practice makes perfect. , 2008, The Journal of urology.

[50]  M. Blute Radical prostatectomy by open or laparoscopic/robotic techniques: an issue of surgical device or surgical expertise? , 2008, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[51]  C. Andreoni,et al.  Differences among patients undergoing perineal or retropubic radical prostatectomy in pain and perioperative variables: a prospective study , 2009, BJU international.

[52]  J. Moul Will the global economic downturn affect prostate cancer care? Pelvic lymphadenectomy as an example. , 2009, European urology.

[53]  Khurshid A Guru,et al.  Current status of robot-assisted surgery in urology: a multi-national survey of 297 urologic surgeons. , 2009, The Canadian journal of urology.

[54]  S. Lipsitz,et al.  Logistic Regression With Incomplete Covariate Data in Complex Survey Sampling: Application of Reweighted Estimating Equations , 2009, Epidemiology.

[55]  Herbert Lepor,et al.  Status of radical prostatectomy in 2009: is there medical evidence to justify the robotic approach? , 2009, Reviews in urology.