Dataset Information

Robotic prostatectomy after abandoned open radical prostatectomy-Technical aspects and outcomes.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To describe the technical aspects and outcomes of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) following abandoned open radical prostatectomy (ORP).

Patients and methods

A retrospective review was performed of patients who underwent RARP following abandonment of ORP between 2016 and 2020. RARP was undertaken by two highly experienced robotic surgeons. Analysis of patient and operative characteristics, outcomes, and reasons for abandonment of ORP were described.

Results

Six patients were included for analysis with a median age of 63.5 years [50.3-67.5]. The median body mass index (BMI) was 34.7 [27.8-36.2]. All patients had intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Small prostate and deep pelvis were given as reasons for abandoning ORP in five cases (83.3%), with four of these also attributing increased BMI as a factor. Extensive mesh from previous bilateral inguinal hernia repair was cited as the reason for abandonment in the remaining patient. One patient had commenced androgen deprivation therapy following abandoned ORP. Extensive retropubic adhesions were noted at the time of RARP in five of six patients, with intraoperative complication of small bladder lacerations encountered in the patient with prior mesh hernia repair. The median time from abandoned ORP to RARP was 128 days [40-216]. Median operating time was 160 minutes [139-190] and estimated blood loss was 225 mL [138-375]. Negative margins were obtained in four of six cases, with further salvage treatment being required in one case at a median follow-up duration of 10.5 months [6.5-25.3].

Conclusion

Abandonment of ORP is an uncommonly reported event, however, in this small case series, we demonstrate that, in the hands of experienced surgeons, RARP is a safe and technically feasible alternative in such cases. Increased BMI, small prostate size and pelvic anatomical constraints appear to be common catalysts for abandonment of open surgery in this cohort. Identifying these high-risk patients early and considering referral to robotic centers may be preferred.

SUBMITTER: O'Connor E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8988844 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceWith the current patterns of adoption and use of robotic surgery and improvement in the overall survival of patients with prostate cancer, it is important to evaluate the immediate and long-term cost implications of treatments for patients with prostate cancer.ObjectiveTo compare health care costs and use 1 year after open radical prostatectomy (ORP) vs robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP).Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study used a US commercial claims database from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2018. A total of 11 457 men aged 18 to 64 years who underwent inpatient radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer and were continuously enrolled with medical and prescription drug coverage from 180 days before to 365 days after inpatient prostatectomy were identified. An inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis was performed to examine the differences in costs and use of health care services by surgical modality. Data analysis was conducted from September 2019 to July 2020.ExposuresType of surgical procedure: ORP vs RARP.Main outcomes and measuresThree outcomes within 1 year after the inpatient prostatectomy were investigated: (1) total health care costs, including reimbursement paid by insurers and out of pocket by patients; (2) health care use, including inpatient readmission, emergency department, hospital outpatient, and office visits; and (3) estimated days missed from work due to health care use.ResultsOf the 11 457 patients who underwent inpatient prostatectomy, 1604 (14.0%) had ORP and 9853 (86.0%) had RARP and most patients (8467 [73.9%]) were aged 55 to 64 years. Compared with patients who underwent ORP, those who received RARP had a higher cost at the index hospitalization (mean difference, $2367; 95% CI, $1821-$2914; P < .001), but similar total cumulative costs were observed within 180 days (mean difference, $397; 95% CI, -$582 to $1375; P = .43) and 1 year after discharge (-$383; 95% CI, -$1802 to $1037; P = .60). One-year postdischarge health care use was significantly lower in the RARP compared with ORP group for mean numbers of emergency department visits (-0.09 visits; 95% CI, -0.11 to -0.07 visits; P < .001) and hospital outpatient visits (-1.5 visits; -1.63 to -1.36 visits; P < .001). The reduction in use of health care services among patients who underwent RARP translated into additional savings of $2929 (95% CI, $1600-$4257; P < .001) and approximately 1.69 fewer days (95% CI, 1.49-1.89 days; P < .001) missed from work for health care visits.Conclusions and relevanceTotal cumulative cost in this study was similar between ORP and RARP 1 year post discharge; this finding suggests that lower postdischarge health care use after RARP may offset the higher costs during the index hospitalization.

Project description:BackgroundProstate cancer is the second most common type of cancer in Canadian men. Radical prostatectomy is one of the treatment options available, and involves removing the prostate gland and surrounding tissues. In recent years, surgeons have begun to use robot-assisted radical prostatectomy more frequently. We aimed to determine the clinical benefits and harms of the robotic surgical system for radical prostatectomy (robot-assisted radical prostatectomy) compared with the open and laparoscopic surgical methods. We also assessed the cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer in Ontario.MethodsWe performed a literature search and included prospective comparative studies that examined robot-assisted versus open or laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. The outcomes of interest were perioperative, functional, and oncological. The quality of the body of evidence was examined according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We also conducted a cost-utility analysis with a 1-year time horizon. The potential long-term benefits of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for functional and oncological outcomes were also evaluated in a 10-year Markov model in scenario analyses. In addition, we conducted a budget impact analysis to estimate the additional costs to the provincial budget if the adoption of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy were to increase in the next 5 years. A needs assessment determined that the published literature on patient perspectives was relatively well developed, and that direct patient engagement would add relatively little new information.ResultsCompared with the open approach, we found robot-assisted radical prostatectomy reduced length of stay and blood loss (moderate quality evidence) but had no difference or inconclusive results for functional and oncological outcomes (low to moderate quality evidence). Compared with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, robot-assisted radical prostatectomy had no difference in perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes (low to moderate quality evidence). Compared with open radical prostatectomy, our best estimates suggested that robot-assisted prostatectomy was associated with higher costs ($6,234) and a small gain in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (0.0012). The best estimate of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $5.2 million per QALY gained. However, if robot-assisted radical prostatectomy were assumed to have substantially better long-term functional and oncological outcomes, the ICER might be as low as $83,921 per QALY gained. We estimated the annual budget impact to be $0.8 million to $3.4 million over the next 5 years.ConclusionsThere is no high-quality evidence that robot-assisted radical prostatectomy improves functional and oncological outcomes compared with open and laparoscopic approaches. However, compared with open radical prostatectomy, the costs of using the robotic system are relatively large while the health benefits are relatively small.