Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Current Urology Reports
Erschienen in: Current Urology Reports 3/2011

01.06.2011

Quality of Evidence to Compare Outcomes of Open and Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy

verfasst von: Branden Duffey, Briony Varda, Badrinath Konety

Erschienen in: Current Urology Reports | Ausgabe 3/2011

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) has gained widespread acceptance in the treatment of prostate cancer. While it increasingly is becoming the surgical approach of choice in many centers, limited data exist directly comparing it to radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP). This review examines the evidence comparing RALP to RRP. The outcomes evaluated are arranged into perioperative, oncologic, and functional outcomes. Of the 21 publications meeting our selection criteria, Level II, III, and IV evidence were found in 9, 1, and 11 articles, respectively. Overall, RALP was associated with lower blood loss, transfusion rates, length of stay, and higher cost when compared to RRP. Definitive conclusions regarding complications and oncologic and functional outcomes are not yet possible, and will require longer-term follow-up and well-designed randomized controlled trials.
Literatur
1.
Jemal A, Siegel R, Xu J, et al. Cancer statistics, 2010. CA Cancer J Clin. 2010;60:277–300.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Yuh BE, Hussain A, Chandrasekhar R, et al. Comparative analysis of global practice patterns in urologic robot-assisted surgery. J Endourol. 2010;24:1637–44.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Ficarra V, Novara G, Fracalanza S, et al. A prospective, non-randomized trial comparing robot-assisted laparoscopic and retropubic radical prostatectomy in one European institution. BJU Int. 2009;104:534–9.PubMedCrossRef
4.
•• Kang DC, Hardee MJ, Fesperman SF et al. Low quality of evidence for robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: results of a systematic review of the published literature. Eur Urol 2010, 57: 930–937. This comprehensive review of RALP notes that the RALP literature is limited to observational studies of mostly low quality.PubMedCrossRef
5.
6.
Gainsburg DM, Wax D, Reich DL, et al. Intraoperative management of robotic-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy. JSLS. 2010;14:1–5.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Kordan Y, Barocas DA, Altamar HO, et al. Comparison of transfusion requirements between open and robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2010;106:1036–40.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Rocco B, Matei DV, Melegari S, et al. Robotic vs open prostatectomy in a laparoscopically naive centre: a matched-pair analysis. BJU Int. 2009;104:991–5.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Truesdale MD, Lee DJ, Cheetham PJ, et al. Assessment of lymph node yield after pelvic lymph node dissection in men with prostate cancer: a comparison between robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and open radical prostatectomy in the modern era. J Endourol. 2010;24:1055–60.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Bolenz C, Gupta A, Hotze T, et al. Cost comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and open radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2010;57:453–8.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Breyer BN, Davis CB, Cowan JE, et al. Incidence of bladder neck contracture after robot-assisted laparoscopic and open radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2010;106:1734–8.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Carlsson S, Nilsson AE, Schumacher MC, et al. Surgery-related complications in 1253 robot-assisted and 485 open retropubic radical prostatectomies at the Karolinska University Hospital, Sweden. Urology. 2010;75:1092–7.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Di Pierro GB, Baumeister P, Stucki P et al. A prospective trial comparing consecutive series of open retropubic and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in a centre with a limited caseload. Eur Urol 2010, [Epub ahead of print].
14.
•• Hu JC, Gu X, Lipsitz SR et al. Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy. Jama 2009, 302: 1557–1564. This analysis of SEER-Medicare data indicates that MIRP is associated with fewer strictures and miscellaneous complications compared to RRP, but more genitourinary complications, erectile dysfunction, and incontinence. PubMedCrossRef
15.
Krambeck AE, DiMarco DS, Rangel LJ, et al. Radical prostatectomy for prostatic adenocarcinoma: a matched comparison of open retropubic and robot-assisted techniques. BJU Int. 2009;103:448–53.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Lo KL, Ng CF, Lam CN, et al. Short-term outcome of patients with robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: for localised carcinoma of prostate. Hong Kong Med J. 2010;16:31–5.PubMed
17.
Choi WW, Gu X, Lipsitz SR et al. The effect of minimally invasive and open radical prostatectomy surgeon volume. Urol Oncol 2010, [Epub ahead of print].
18.
Bolenz C, Gupta A, Hotze T, et al. The influence of body mass index on the cost of radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2010;106:1188–93.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Lotan Y, Bolenz C, Gupta A, et al. The effect of the approach to radical prostatectomy on the profitability of hospitals and surgeons. BJU Int. 2010;105:1531–5.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Lowrance WT, Elkin EB, Jacks LM, et al. Comparative effectiveness of prostate cancer surgical treatments: a population based analysis of postoperative outcomes. J Urol. 2010;183:1366–72.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Menon M, Tewari A, Baize B, et al. Prospective comparison of radical retropubic prostatectomy and robot-assisted anatomic prostatectomy: the Vattikuti Urology Institute experience. Urology. 2002;60:864–8.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Ahlering TE, Woo D, Eichel L, et al. Robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparison of one surgeon’s outcomes. Urology. 2004;63:819–22.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Pfitzenmaier J, Pahernik S, Tremmel T, et al. Positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: do they have an impact on biochemical or clinical progression? BJU Int. 2008;102:1413–8.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Tewari A, Srivasatava A, Menon M. A prospective comparison of radical retropubic and robot-assisted prostatectomy: experience in one institution. BJU Int. 2003;92:205–10.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Smith Jr JA, Chan RC, Chang SS, et al. 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;178:2385–9. discussion 2389–2390.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Menon M, Shrivastava A, Kaul S, et al. Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy: contemporary technique and analysis of results. Eur Urol. 2007;51:648–57. discussion 657–648.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Parsons JK, Bennett JL. Outcomes of retropubic, laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted prostatectomy. Urology. 2008;72:412–6.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Fracalanza S, Ficarra V, Cavalleri S, et al. Is robotically assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy less invasive than retropubic radical prostatectomy? Results from a prospective, unrandomized, comparative study. BJU Int. 2008;101:1145–9.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Williams SB, Chen MH, D’Amico AV, et al. Radical retropubic prostatectomy and robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: likelihood of positive surgical margin(s). Urology. 2010;76:1097–101.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Loeb S, Epstein JI, Ross AE, et al. Benign prostate glands at the bladder neck margin in robotic vs open radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2010;105:1446–9.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Barocas DA, Salem S, Kordan Y, et al. Robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus radical retropubic prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer: comparison of short-term biochemical recurrence-free survival. J Urol. 2010;183:990–6.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Joslyn SA, Konety BR. Impact of extent of lymphadenectomy on survival after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Urology. 2006;68:121–5.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Allaf ME, Palapattu GS, Trock BJ, et al. Anatomical extent of lymph node dissection: impact on men with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 2004;172:1840–4.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Briganti A, Chun FK, Salonia A, et al. Critical assessment of ideal nodal yield at pelvic lymphadenectomy to accurately diagnose prostate cancer nodal metastasis in patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology. 2007;69:147–51.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Cooperberg MR, Kane CJ, Cowan JE, et al. Adequacy of lymphadenectomy among men undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2010;105:88–92.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Lallas CD, Pe ML, Thumar AB et al. Comparison of lymph node yield in robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy with that in open radical retropubic prostatectomy. BJU Int 2010, [Epub ahead of print].
37.
Coelho RF, Rocco B, Patel MB, et al. Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a critical review of outcomes reported by high-volume centers. J Endourol. 2010;24:2003–15.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Malcolm JB, Fabrizio MD, Barone BB, et al. Quality of life after open or robotic prostatectomy, cryoablation or brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 2010;183:1822–8.PubMedCrossRef
39.
Freedland SJ, Humphreys EB, Mangold LA, et al. Time to prostate specific antigen recurrence after radical prostatectomy and risk of prostate cancer specific mortality. J Urol. 2006;176:1404–8.PubMedCrossRef
40.
Vickers AJ, Bianco FJ, Serio AM, et al. The surgical learning curve for prostate cancer control after radical prostatectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99:1171–7.PubMedCrossRef
41.
Bajammal S, Dahm P, Scarpero HM, et al. How to use an article about therapy. J Urol. 2008;180:1904–11.PubMedCrossRef
42.
Tseng TY, Breau RH, Fesperman SF, et al. Evaluating the evidence: the methodological and reporting quality of comparative observational studies of surgical interventions in urological publications. BJU Int. 2009;103:1026–31.PubMedCrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Quality of Evidence to Compare Outcomes of Open and Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy
verfasst von
Branden Duffey
Briony Varda
Badrinath Konety
Publikationsdatum
01.06.2011
Verlag
Current Science Inc.
Erschienen in
Current Urology Reports / Ausgabe 3/2011
Print ISSN: 1527-2737
Elektronische ISSN: 1534-6285
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-011-0180-6

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2011

Current Urology Reports 3/2011 Zur Ausgabe

ReviewPaper

Management of Rising Prostate-specific Antigen After a Negative Biopsy

ReviewPaper

Use of Testosterone Replacement Therapy in Patients with Prostate Cancer

ReviewPaper

Current Clinical Trials in Castrate-Resistant Prostate Cancer

ReviewPaper

Androgen Suppression Strategies for Prostate Cancer: Is There an Ideal Approach?

ReviewPaper

Robotic High-intensity Focused Ultrasound for Prostate Cancer: What Have We Learned in 15 Years of Clinical Use?

ReviewPaper

Update on Prostate Brachytherapy: Long-term Outcomes and Treatment-related Morbidity

Neu im Fachgebiet Urologie

Ambulantisierung: Erste Erfahrungen mit dem Hybrid-DRG

02.05.2024 DCK 2024 Kongressbericht

Die Hybrid-DRG-Verordnung soll dazu führen, dass mehr chirurgische Eingriffe ambulant durchgeführt werden, wie es in anderen Ländern schon länger üblich ist. Die gleiche Vergütung im ambulanten und stationären Sektor hatten Niedergelassene schon lange gefordert. Aber die Umsetzung bereitet ihnen doch Kopfzerbrechen.

Sind Frauen die fähigeren Ärzte?

30.04.2024 Gendermedizin Nachrichten

Patienten, die von Ärztinnen behandelt werden, dürfen offenbar auf bessere Therapieergebnisse hoffen als Patienten von Ärzten. Besonders gilt das offenbar für weibliche Kranke, wie eine Studie zeigt.

Harninkontinenz: Netz-Op. erfordert über lange Zeit intensive Nachsorge

30.04.2024 Harninkontinenz Nachrichten

Frauen mit Belastungsinkontinenz oder Organprolaps sind nach einer Netz-Operation keineswegs beschwerdefrei. Vielmehr scheint die Krankheitslast weiterhin hoch zu sein, sogar höher als von harninkontinenten Frauen, die sich nicht haben operieren lassen.

Adjuvante Immuntherapie verlängert Leben bei RCC

25.04.2024 Nierenkarzinom Nachrichten

Nun gibt es auch Resultate zum Gesamtüberleben: Eine adjuvante Pembrolizumab-Therapie konnte in einer Phase-3-Studie das Leben von Menschen mit Nierenzellkarzinom deutlich verlängern. Die Sterberate war im Vergleich zu Placebo um 38% geringer.

Update Urologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen
Bildnachweise