Patterns of Care for Radical Prostatectomy in the United States From 2003 to 2005
- 30 November 2008
- journal article
- Published by Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) in Journal of Urology
- Vol. 180 (5), 1969-1974
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.07.054
Abstract
Purpose: The demand for minimally invasive radical prostatectomy is increasing, although population based outcomes remain unclear. We assessed use and outcomes in American men undergoing radical prostatectomy. Materials and Methods: We identified 14,727 men undergoing minimally invasive, perineal and retropubic radical prostatectomy during 2003 to 2005 using nationally representative, employer based administrative data. We assessed the association between surgical approach and outcomes, adjusting for age, race, comorbidity and geographic region. Results: Minimally invasive radical prostatectomy use increased from 5.4% to 24.4%, while conversion to open surgery decreased from 28.6% to 4.5% in the 3-year study. Men undergoing minimally invasive and perineal radical prostatectomy vs retropubic radical prostatectomy experienced fewer 30-day complications (14.2% and 14.9% vs 17.5%, p = 0.001), blood transfusions (2.2% and 3.6% vs 9.1%, p <0.001) and anastomotic strictures (6.8% and 8.5% vs 12.9%, p <0.001), and shorter median length of stay (1 and 2 days, respectively, vs 4, p <0.001). On adjusted analysis minimally invasive vs retropubic radical prostatectomy was associated with fewer 30-day complications (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.66, 0.92), transfusions (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.16, 0.34) and anastomotic strictures (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.40, 0.62), and shorter length of stay (parameter estimate −0.53, 95% CI −0.58, −0.49). Similarly perineal vs retropubic radical prostatectomy was associated with fewer transfusions (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.31, 0.82) and anastomotic strictures (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.47, 0.90), and shorter length of stay (parameter estimate −0.53, 95% CI −0.42, −0.29). Conclusions: While the use of minimally invasive radical prostatectomy surged, men undergoing minimally invasive vs perineal radical prostatectomy experienced a lower risk of 30-day complications, blood transfusions and anastomotic strictures, and a shorter length of stay. Furthermore, perineal vs retropubic radical prostatectomy was also associated with relatively favorable outcomes. Further study is needed to assess continence, potency and cancer control.Keywords
This publication has 19 references indexed in Scilit:
- Cancer Statistics, 2008CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 2008
- Comparison of Length of Hospital Stay Between Radical Retropubic Prostatectomy and Robotic Assisted Laparoscopic ProstatectomyJournal of Urology, 2007
- Financial Comparative Analysis of Minimally Invasive Surgery to Open Surgery for Localized Prostate Cancer: A Single-Institution ExperienceUrology, 2007
- Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: What is the learning curve?Urology, 2005
- The Changing Face of Low-Risk Prostate Cancer: Trends in Clinical Presentation and Primary ManagementJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2004
- Laparoscopic Resection for Colon Cancer — The End of the Beginning?New England Journal of Medicine, 2004
- Role of Surgeon Volume in Radical Prostatectomy OutcomesJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2003
- Prospective comparison of radical retropubic prostatectomy and robot-assisted anatomic prostatectomy: The Vattikuti Urology Institute experienceUrology, 2002
- Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: assessment after 240 proceduresUrologic Clinics of North America, 2001
- A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: Development and validationJournal of Chronic Diseases, 1987