Perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared with open radical prostatectomy: results from the nationwide inpatient sample.

BACKGROUND Prior to the introduction and dissemination of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), population-based studies comparing open radical prostatectomy (ORP) and minimally invasive radical prostatectomy (MIRP) found no clinically significant difference in perioperative complication rates. OBJECTIVE Assess the rate of RARP utilization and reexamine the difference in perioperative complication rates between RARP and ORP in light of RARP's supplanting laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) as the most common MIRP technique. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS As of October 2008, a robot-assisted modifier was introduced to denote robot-assisted procedures. Relying on the Nationwide Inpatient Sample between October 2008 and December 2009, patients treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) were identified. The robot-assisted modifier (17.4x) was used to identify RARP (n=11 889). Patients with the minimally invasive modifier code (54.21) without the robot-assisted modifier were classified as having undergone LRP and were removed from further analyses. The remainder were classified as ORP patients (n=7389). INTERVENTION All patients underwent RARP or ORP. MEASUREMENTS We compared the rates of blood transfusions, intraoperative and postoperative complications, prolonged length of stay (pLOS), and in-hospital mortality. Multivariable logistic regression analyses of propensity score-matched populations, fitted with general estimation equations for clustering among hospitals, further adjusted for confounding factors. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS Of 19 462 RPs, 61.1% were RARPs, 38.0% were ORPs, and 0.9% were LRPs. In multivariable analyses of propensity score-matched populations, patients undergoing RARP were less likely to receive a blood transfusion (odds ratio [OR]: 0.34; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28-0.40), to experience an intraoperative complication (OR: 0.47; 95% CI, 0.31-0.71) or a postoperative complication (OR: 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77-0.96), and to experience a pLOS (OR: 0.28; 95% CI, 0.26-0.30). Limitations of this study include lack of adjustment for tumor characteristics, surgeon volume, learning curve effect, and longitudinal follow-up. CONCLUSIONS RARP has supplanted ORP as the most common surgical approach for RP. Moreover, we demonstrate superior adjusted perioperative outcomes after RARP in virtually all examined outcomes.

[1]  M. Menon Re:James A. Eastham, Robotic-assisted prostatectomy: is there truth in advertising? Eur Urol 2008;54:720-2. , 2009, European urology.

[2]  M. Menon,et al.  Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. , 2009, European urology.

[3]  Elliott S Fisher,et al.  Analysis of observational studies in the presence of treatment selection bias: effects of invasive cardiac management on AMI survival using propensity score and instrumental variable methods. , 2007, JAMA.

[4]  S. Lipsitz,et al.  Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy. , 2009, JAMA.

[5]  W. Meyers,et al.  Laparoscopic surgery and the systemic immune response. , 1998, Annals of surgery.

[6]  R. D. White Re: Comparative Effectiveness of Minimally Invasive vs Open Radical Prostatectomy , 2010 .

[7]  R. Deyo,et al.  ADAPTING A CLINICAL COMORBIDITY USE WITH ICD-g-CM ADMINISTRATIVE INDEX FOR DATABASES , 1992 .

[8]  I. Gill,et al.  Decreased complications of contemporary laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: use of a standardized reporting system. , 2007, The Journal of urology.

[9]  R. D'Agostino Adjustment Methods: Propensity Score Methods for Bias Reduction in the Comparison of a Treatment to a Non‐Randomized Control Group , 2005 .

[10]  M. Menon,et al.  Radical prostatectomy at academic versus nonacademic institutions: a population based analysis. , 2011, The Journal of urology.

[11]  P. Leeuwen Re: Comparative Effectiveness of Minimally Invasive vs Open Radical Prostatectomy , 2010 .

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

[13]  John T. Wei,et al.  Variations in quality of care for men with early-stage prostate cancer. , 2008, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[14]  P. Walsh,et al.  Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. , 2005, The Journal of urology.

[15]  A. Jemal,et al.  Cancer Statistics, 2010 , 2010, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[16]  W. Lowrance,et al.  Comparative effectiveness of prostate cancer surgical treatments: a population based analysis of postoperative outcomes. , 2010, The Journal of urology.

[17]  R. Deyo,et al.  Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. , 1992, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[18]  地理学 United States Census Bureau , 2011 .

[19]  Philipp Dahm,et al.  Low quality of evidence for robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: results of a systematic review of the published literature. , 2010, European urology.

[20]  C. Mackenzie,et al.  A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. , 1987, Journal of chronic diseases.

[21]  M. Menon,et al.  A population-based analysis of temporal perioperative complication rates after minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. , 2011, European urology.

[22]  N. Dubrawsky Cancer statistics , 1989, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[23]  B. Guillonneau,et al.  Critical evaluation of perioperative complications in laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. , 2010, Urology.

[24]  M. Menon,et al.  Morbidity and mortality of radical prostatectomy differs by insurance status , 2012, Cancer.

[25]  J. Eastham Robotic-assisted prostatectomy: is there truth in advertising? , 2008, European urology.