Abstract
Background:
The diffusion of minimally invasive radical prostatectomy (MIRP) in the United States may have led to adverse patient outcomes due to rapid surgeon adoption and collective inexperience. We hypothesized that throughout the early period of minimally invasive surgery, MIRP patients had inferior outcomes as compared with those who had open radical prostatectomy (ORP).
Methods:
We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare dataset and identified men who had ORP and MIRP for prostate cancer from 2003–2009. Study endpoints were receipt of subsequent cancer treatment, and evidence of postoperative voiding dysfunction, erectile dysfunction (ED) and bladder outlet obstruction. We used proportional hazards regression to estimate the impact of surgical approach on each endpoint, and included an interaction term to test for modification of the effect of surgical approach by year of surgery.
Results:
ORP (n=5362) and MIRP (n=1852) patients differed in their clinical and demographic characteristics. Controlling for patient characteristics and surgeon volume, there was no difference in subsequent cancer treatments (hazard ratio (HR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76–1.05), although MIRP was associated with a higher risk of voiding dysfunction (HR 1.31, 95% CI 1.20–1.43) and ED (HR 1.43, 95% CI 1.31–1.56), but a lower risk of bladder outlet obstruction (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75–0.97). There was no interaction between approach and year for any outcome. When stratifying the analysis by year, MIRP consistently had higher rates of ED and voiding dysfunction with no substantial improvement over time.
Conclusions:
MIRP patients had adverse urinary and sexual outcomes throughout the diffusion of minimally invasive surgery. This may have been a result of the rapid adoption of robotic surgery with inadequate surgeon preparedness.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 4 print issues and online access
$259.00 per year
only $64.75 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barbash GI, Glied SA . New technology and health care costs—the case of robot-assisted surgery. New Engl J Med 2010; 363: 701–704.
Ficarra V, Novara G, Artibani W, Cestari A, Galfano A, Graefen M et al. Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol 2009; 55: 1037–1063.
Menon M, Bhandari M, Gupta N, Lane Z, Peabody JO, Rogers CG et al. Biochemical recurrence following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: analysis of 1384 patients with a median 5-year follow-up. Eur Urol 2010; 58: 838–846.
Touijer K, Eastham JA, Secin FP, Romero Otero J, Serio A, Stasi J et al. Comprehensive prospective comparative analysis of outcomes between open and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy conducted in 2003 to 2005. J Urol 2008; 179: 1811–1817, discussion 1817.
Lowrance WT, Elkin EB, Jacks LM, Yee DS, Jang TL, Laudone VP et al. Comparative effectiveness of prostate cancer surgical treatments: a population based analysis of postoperative outcomes. J Urol 2010; 183: 1366–1372.
Hu JC, Gu X, Lipsitz SR, Barry MJ, D'Amico AV, Weinberg AC et al. Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy. JAMA 2009; 302: 1557–1564.
Hu JC, Wang Q, Pashos CL, Lipsitz SR, Keating NL . Utilization and outcomes of minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 2278–2284.
Williams SB, Gu X, Lipsitz SR, Nguyen PL, Choueiri TK, Hu JC . Utilization and expense of adjuvant cancer therapies following radical prostatectomy. Cancer 2011; 117: 4846–4854.
Vickers AJ, Savage CJ, Hruza M, Tuerk I, Koenig P, Martinez-Pineiro L et al. The surgical learning curve for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol 2009; 10: 475–480.
Schmitges J, Trinh QD, Abdollah F, Sun M, Bianchi M, Budaus L et al. A population-based analysis of temporal perioperative complication rates after minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2011; 60: 564–571.
Warren JL, Klabunde CN, Schrag D, Bach PB, Riley GF . Overview of the SEER-Medicare data: content, research applications, and generalizability to the United States elderly population. Med Care 2002; 40: 3–18.
Klabunde CN, Warren JL, Legler JM . Assessing comorbidity using claims data: an overview. Med Care 2002; 40: 26–35.
Hu JC, Gandaglia G, Karakiewicz PI, Nguyen PL, Trinh QD, Shih YC et al. Comparative effectiveness of robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy cancer control. Eur Urol 2014; 66: 666–672.
Barry MJ, Gallagher PM, Skinner JS, Fowler FJ Jr . Adverse effects of robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus open retropubic radical prostatectomy among a nationwide random sample of medicare-age men. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30: 513–518.
Tollefson MK, Gettman MT, Karnes RJ, Frank I . Administrative data sets are inaccurate for assessing functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2011; 185: 1686–1690.
Thompson JE, Egger S, Bohm M, Haynes AM, Matthews J, Rasiah K et al. Superior quality of life and improved surgical margins are achievable with robotic radical prostatectomy after a long learning curve: a prospective single-surgeon study of 1552 consecutive cases. European urology 2014; 65: 521–531.
Borin JF, Skarecky DW, Narula N, Ahlering TE . Impact of urethral stump length on continence and positive surgical margins in robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Urology 2007; 70: 173–177.
Saranchuk JW, Kattan MW, Elkin E, Touijer AK, Scardino PT, Eastham JA . Achieving optimal outcomes after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 4146–4151.
Shikanov S, Woo J, Al-Ahmadie H, Katz MH, Zagaja GP, Shalhav AL et al. Extrafascial versus interfascial nerve-sparing technique for robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: comparison of functional outcomes and positive surgical margins characteristics. Urology 2009; 74: 611–616.
Dolan JP, Diggs BS, Sheppard BC, Hunter JG . Ten-year trend in the national volume of bile duct injuries requiring operative repair. Surg Endosc 2005; 19: 967–973.
Brummer TH, Seppala TT, Harkki PS . National learning curve for laparoscopic hysterectomy and trends in hysterectomy in Finland 2000-2005. Human Reproduction 2008; 23: 840–845.
Palaniappa NC, Telem DA, Ranasinghe NE, Divino CM . Incidence of iatrogenic ureteral injury after laparoscopic colectomy. Arch Surgery 2012; 147: 267–271.
Romero V, Akpinar H, Smith JJ 3rd, Assimos DG . Changing patterns in iatrogenic ureteral injuries. Rev Urol 2011; 13: e179–e183.
Menon M, Tewari A, Baize B, Guillonneau B, Vallancien G . Prospective comparison of radical retropubic prostatectomy and robot-assisted anatomic prostatectomy: the Vattikuti Urology Institute experience. Urology 2002; 60: 864–868.
Mills JT, Burris MB, Warburton DJ, Conaway MR, Schenkman NS, Krupski TL . Positioning injuries associated with robotic assisted urological surgery. J Urol 2013; 190: 580–584.
Cormier B, Nezhat F, Sternchos J, Sonoda Y, Leitao MM Jr . Electrocautery-associated vascular injury during robotic-assisted surgery. Obstetrics Gynecol 2012; 120: 491–493.
Bianco FJ Jr ., Vickers AJ, Cronin AM, Klein EA, Eastham JA, Pontes JE et al. Variations among experienced surgeons in cancer control after open radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2010; 183: 977–982.
Kwon EO, Bautista TC, Jung H, Goharderakhshan RZ, Williams SG, Chien GW . Impact of robotic training on surgical and pathologic outcomes during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Urology 2010; 76: 363–368.
Lee JY, Mucksavage P, Sundaram CP, McDougall EM . Best practices for robotic surgery training and credentialing. J Urol 2011; 185: 1191–1197.
Zorn KC, Gautam G, Shalhav AL, Clayman RV, Ahlering TE, Albala DM et al. Training, credentialing, proctoring and medicolegal risks of robotic urological surgery: recommendations of the society of urologic robotic surgeons. J Urol 2009; 182: 1126–1132.
McCulloch P, Altman DG, Campbell WB, Flum DR, Glasziou P, Marshall JC et al. No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. Lancet 2009; 374: 1105–1112.
Shuch B, Hanley J, Lai J, Vourganti S, Kim SP, Setodji CM et al. Overall survival advantage with partial nephrectomy: a bias of observational data? Cancer 2013; 119: 2981–2989.
Trinh QD, Schmitges J, Sun M, Sammon J, Shariat SF, Zorn K et al. Morbidity and mortality of radical prostatectomy differs by insurance status. Cancer 2012; 118: 1803–1810.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Supplementary Information accompanies the paper on the Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases website
Supplementary information
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Anderson, C., Elkin, E., Atoria, C. et al. The diffusion of minimally invasive radical prostatectomy in the United States: a case study of the introduction of new surgical devices. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 18, 75–80 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2014.49
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2014.49
This article is cited by
-
State of the science of sexual health among older cancer survivors: an integrative review
Journal of Cancer Survivorship (2024)